On Monday, May 23, 2011 05:35:26 AM Ilias Lazaridis wrote:
> On 23 =CC=DC=FA=EF=F2, 02:27, Johnny Morrice <sp... / killersmurf.com> wrot=
e:
> [...] - (off topic, off line, personal)
>=20
> Mr. Morrice.
>=20
> I hope you are aware that you have already crossed moral and legal
> lines.

Unlikely.

Moral -- When you ask a group of volunteers for help, you _ask_. You don't=
=20
demand, with "requirements", and then refuse to read the responses because=
=20
they're "too complicated" without offering a single reason why. I would=20
actually consider it a moral obligation to point these things out, so that=
=20
others don't waste their time trying to engage you.

Legal -- I'm calling your bluff. You can either claim that troll is well-
defined enough that it is a factual claim, in which case, I think the evide=
nce=20
is against you -- and even if you were able to show it to be false, for it =
to=20
be slander, you would also have to show it to be malicious. If troll is not=
=20
well-defined enough to be a factual matter, then it is an opinion, and=20
opinions are not actionable -- if it is merely our _opinion_ that you are a=
=20
troll, it is also our right to express that opinion.

Legally, it's more complicated than that, of course. But there's also the=20
Streissand Effect -- if you do attempt to sue any of us because we called y=
ou=20
a troll, you're going to make headlines in any geek, Internet, or developer-
oriented news sources. The fact that the readers Slashdot, Digg, Reddit,=20
Wired, etc would all know that you couldn't handle someone calling you a tr=
oll=20
would do far more damage to your reputation than anything we say here.

So please, don't make legal threats. You know legal action over this cannot=
=20
possibly end well for you. Since you are hopefully smart enough not to purs=
ue=20
such legal action, mentioning that it "crosses legal lines" is both childis=
h=20
and irrelevant.

> I hope that the professionals within this group will intervene at some
> point, if the "attacks" on my person continue.

What form would you expect that intervention to take? There have been much=
=20
more heated flamewars, with much worse names than "troll" thrown around,=20
without people being banned from the list.

Or are you expecting people to speak out on your behalf? In that case, it=20
would help if you did anything constructive, even something which would=20
benefit you: Read and understand the "complicated" advice, or ask us questi=
ons=20
about it, and actually engage us, instead of:

> And of course I hope that there are still people on this group which
> are professional enough to simply reply based on a given requirement,
> instead of starting to discuss the requirement.

It would be unprofessional of me not to discuss a requirement with an actua=
l=20
client who is actually paying me, so where does that leave you?

Consider: If the client wants a Java Web Start application which does nothi=
ng=20
but open a web browser pointed at a Flash application which does nothing bu=
t=20
grab XML over HTTP, pass it to a Silverlight app which applies an XSLT=20
transform to convert them to HTML, and finally render them in the browser...

It would be unprofessional, immoral, and stupid to "simply reply" based on=
=20
that requirement, let alone to actually build that nightmare. It would be m=
y=20
obligation as a developer, a professional, and a human being to at least=20
"discuss" it with the poor misguided user -- try to talk them out of it, or=
 at=20
least figure out why they're doing it that way instead of applying the XSLT=
 on=20
the server and serving plain HTML, or delivering the XML+XSLT to supporting=
=20
browsers, or at the very least, using JavaScript to perform this task rathe=
r=20
than three separate plugins.

Now consider your case. It would be unprofessional of me not to ask why you=
=20
cannot have build tools, as this would be a trivial solution to your proble=
m=20
without requiring anyone to do anything to any existing gems.