dblack / wobblini.net wrote:

> On Sat, 2 Dec 2006, Paul Lutus wrote:
> 
>> dblack / wobblini.net wrote:
>>
>> / ...
>>
>>>>> Why can't it be a string, I can use whatever I want to identify an
>>>>> object.
>>>>
>>>> 1. I can see why this thread goes on so long -- instead of meeting my
>>>> request, you just changed the subject.
>>>
>>> Paul, could you please stop being so confrontational?
>>
>> There isn't one word about Ruby in your post. That places you post in a
>> well-known category, one that should always be marked [OT].
> 
> I'll take that as a "No."

Which "No" did you have in mind? In essence my reply, by virtue of existing,
says "yes."

Your post's meta-message is that there are times when a critical post in
appropriate, and (in a morally neutral universe) individuals decide those
times on their own. I happen to agree, and I have shown that I agree by
replying.

Now that I have told you that I understood and accepted your post and its
underlying rationale, what remains undetermined is whether you understand
and accept mine.

> Actually my main message isn't to you (it's been pointed out to me
> that you're a career troll, doing the same thing in a number of online
> forums).

Nice ad-hominem touch, one that reinforces my point that we are free to be
as critical as we like, even when we depart reality in doing so. But this
is a symmetrical principle -- it applies to all equally.

> It's to the list in general, and especially the newcomers 
> who might be put off: Hang in there!  We're not all like this.  You
> can get lots of welcome and help from lots of very nice experts here.

Including from me, as a balanced reading my posts proves.

-- 
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com