It's probably worth mentioning, to be fair to Reindl, that he can no longer
respond publically to this list..
Thanks,
Kiall
Sent from my phone.
On Apr 7, 2012 8:07 p.m., "Maciek Sokolewicz" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> On 07-04-2012 03:10, John Crenshaw wrote:
>
> Seriously, if you're so angry that you can't even type straight you
>> should take a break before responding. Any argument delivered like this
>> won't be well received anyway. Take a break, find your place of zen,
>> respond when you can be civil.
>>
>> Do you have no idea how to maintain a level of professionalism when
>>>> interacting with the opinions and ideas of other developers?
>>>>
>>>
>>> i have ideas how to do so
>>>
>>> but i learned over many years that people do not understand that they
>>> have
>>> really bad ideas if you say freindly "not a godd idea"
>>>
>>
>> Wow. I'm honestly shocked. That's the crux of it isn't it? Trouble is
>> that this sort of response violates the rules of the mailing list; rules
>> that we all agreed to. It also isn't going to go over well with the type of
>> people you have here. This is not a productive communication tactic, this
>> is bullying. If you are unwilling to be civil and rational I have to ask,
>> why are you even here?
>>
>> John Crenshaw
>> Priacta, Inc.
>>
>
> John, I completely agree with you. I would like to urge Reindl to please,
> PLEASE, reconsider your response, at least once, preferably even more
> often, before posting it. In this thread alone, you have personally
> attacked Tom Boutell for no good reason. Your responses were generally very
> very rude, and may easily (and in my opinion rightfuly so) be considered
> personal attacks.
>
> Again, I urge you to reconsider posting such messages. The rules of
> conduct on these mailinglists include section on exactly this. They are
> there to remind us all to be civil. We do not attack eachother in the way
> you do. Instead, you may politely state your view, but do not yell, scream,
> or try to force your views on others.
>
> I would suggest you reread what you have posted, and try to imagine what
> it would look like from other reader's points of view. Personally I felt
> very unpleasant reading your responses. I was hoping it would be a
> one-time-only post, born from anger on a bad day, and that it would be
> followed by an apology. Unfortunately, you continued posting this way.
>
> I am sorry I had to write this. But I feel we should all stand up for
> eachother.
>
> To tell the truth I'd be more excited by a proposal to kill <?php
>> entirely, or more realistically, to support an alternate file
>> extension that doesn't need it. That would be an interesting option
>> for those who want to put "dribs and drabs of PHP sprinkled in HTML"
>> completely behind them.
>>
>
> Tom: I agree with your point. I think it would be nice to be able to
> create PHP codefiles which do not require the <?php start. But IMO it would
> just be a nice-to-have thing, and not really that important, since I'm not
> that bothered by using <?php at the start of every file.
>
> Just my $0.02,
> - Tul
>
> --
> PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List
> To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
>
>