Talk:WikiWikiWeb: Difference between revisions
Fixed capitalisation; clarified text.
(Huh?) |
(Fixed capitalisation; clarified text.) |
||
| Line 102: | Line 102: | ||
''You're like a juvenile delinquent who blames his teachers for making him throw a stone through a school window. Grow up!'' | ''You're like a juvenile delinquent who blames his teachers for making him throw a stone through a school window. Grow up!'' | ||
---- | |||
Anonymous: * ''Untrue. See, for example, http://c2.com/wiki/history/PatternsOfClaimsAgainstTop/21 which is from Dec 03, 2012, as shown at http://c2.com/wiki/history/PatternsOfClaimsAgainstTop/ There are many other examples.'' | Anonymous [in response to the assertion that Ward's last edit was in 2005]: * ''Untrue. See, for example, http://c2.com/wiki/history/PatternsOfClaimsAgainstTop/21 which is from Dec 03, 2012, as shown at http://c2.com/wiki/history/PatternsOfClaimsAgainstTop/ There are many other examples.'' | ||
: Thank You for digging so deep in the dustbin of the wards wiki history! You surfaced another proof for my earlier claim. Ward wrote: <blockquote>I would be pleased if TopMind would take a year or two of vacation from this site. I would encourage others who see value in his technical contributions to neaten them up a little while he is gone. I doubt anyone would regret the removal of posts containing even a hint of flame bait, whether from top or anyone else. I have no intention of arguing this advice with top so not response is required. I know for sure that I feel this way and have felt so since top's arrival years ago." -- WardCunningham</blockquote> | : Thank You for digging so deep in the dustbin of the wards wiki history! You surfaced another proof for my earlier claim. Ward wrote: <blockquote>I would be pleased if TopMind would take a year or two of vacation from this site. I would encourage others who see value in his technical contributions to neaten them up a little while he is gone. I doubt anyone would regret the removal of posts containing even a hint of flame bait, whether from top or anyone else. I have no intention of arguing this advice with top so not response is required. I know for sure that I feel this way and have felt so since top's arrival years ago." -- WardCunningham</blockquote> | ||
| Line 112: | Line 112: | ||
* The "mock-grumpy banter" is in no way a speciality of that wiki. I have seen this nearly everywhere in digital textual asynchronous communication in the last 25 years. Your assumption demonstrates a great lack of experience outside that wiki in general. Also it '''was''' characteristic if at all. There '''is''' no banter any more. The wiki is locked, the experiment is over. [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | * The "mock-grumpy banter" is in no way a speciality of that wiki. I have seen this nearly everywhere in digital textual asynchronous communication in the last 25 years. Your assumption demonstrates a great lack of experience outside that wiki in general. Also it '''was''' characteristic if at all. There '''is''' no banter any more. The wiki is locked, the experiment is over. [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
''Of course, such banter is common. I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that it is "characteristic of the WikiWikiWeb", much as it is characteristic of other wikis and fora in general. That you took such banter seriously, above, suggests that either you "demonstrates a great lack of experience", or that your argument is dishonest because you tried to use it to make a point that you yourself don't agree with.'' | ''Of course, such banter is common. I didn't say otherwise. What I did say is that it is "characteristic of the WikiWikiWeb", much as it is characteristic of other wikis and fora in general. That you took such banter seriously, above, suggests that either it is you who "demonstrates a great lack of experience", or that your argument is dishonest because you tried to use it to make a point that you yourself don't agree with.'' | ||
* It is not Your call to rule what is irrelevant. The nature and content is relevant because Ward was the only one who had two or three roles: Creator, maintainer and contributor. Every one else was only contributor. No other person wrote the software or owned the domain or had the contract with the provider of. Therefore he was called God-king. Therefore the content and nature of his edits are to be distinguished and related to any of the roles. You should be extremely happy, that after silently dropping his role as a contributor he did not drop his role as a maintainer as well. Otherwise the wiki would have been locked like meatball since long or down like w²k. So You could play the one-eyed king and sharkmaster in the land of the blind ;-) [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | * It is not Your call to rule what is irrelevant. The nature and content is relevant because Ward was the only one who had two or three roles: Creator, maintainer and contributor. Every one else was only contributor. No other person wrote the software or owned the domain or had the contract with the provider of. Therefore he was called God-king. Therefore the content and nature of his edits are to be distinguished and related to any of the roles. You should be extremely happy, that after silently dropping his role as a contributor he did not drop his role as a maintainer as well. Otherwise the wiki would have been locked like meatball since long or down like w²k. So You could play the one-eyed king and sharkmaster in the land of the blind ;-) [[User:Manorainjan|Manorainjan]] ([[User talk:Manorainjan|talk]]) 09:13, 27 January 2015 (UTC) | ||
''It is not "Your" call to rule that edits of Ward's are to be "distinguished and related to any of [his] roles". That's merely your awkward way of rationalising your vandalism to WikiWikiWeb based on your apparent argument that Ward must not have cared because he wasn't constantly involved. Actually, it doesn't matter whether Ward was an active participant or not. As is characteristic of innumerable Internet | ''It is not "Your" call to rule that edits of Ward's are to be "distinguished and related to any of [his] roles". That's merely your awkward way of rationalising your vandalism to WikiWikiWeb based on your apparent argument that Ward must not have cared because he wasn't constantly involved. Actually, it doesn't matter whether Ward was an active participant or not. As is characteristic of innumerable Internet fora, the owner participated rarely, preferring to let his users get on with it.'' | ||
''You appear to be oddly obsessed with -- and very disparaging toward -- the WikiWikiWeb. Why is that?'' | ''You appear to be oddly obsessed with -- and very disparaging toward -- the WikiWikiWeb. Why is that?'' | ||