[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [E-devel] website maintainers needed

On Monday, 11 September 2006, at 12:35:12 (-0700),
Blake Barnett wrote:

> Heh... you are so fun to argue with.  You said Ben wouldn't use
> anything but CVS/HTML.

I said nothing of the sort.  Going from "Ben will use XYZ" to "Ben
will use NOTHING BUT XYZ" is an error in deductive reasoning.

> Add to that the fact that you called Ruby an immature language,

Another error in reasoning.  "Something more mature than XYZ" does not
mean "XYZ is immature."

And, though I wasn't clear, I meant "Ruby on Rails," not Ruby as a
language.  Re-reading what I wrote, I realize I didn't phrase it
well.  My bad. :)

> and said that Rake sucks for some unrelated reason.

This is utter crap.  Kindly point me to where I stated that "Rake

> Not confused at all.  You're just trying to side-step my response.

That was not side-stepping.  But now that you've started with the ad
hominem arguments on IRC as well, I think I *will* side-step.

> Running a website this way adds a huge hurdle that most casual
> contributors will simply pass by.  It's not worth the effort.

It has advantages and disadvantages, like anything else.  Those who
visit the sites I maintain already know my preference.

> Website content doesn't need tagging, branching

Says you.  I have experience that demonstrates otherwise.


Michael Jennings (a.k.a. KainX)  http://www.kainx.org/  <mej@kainx.org>
n + 1, Inc., http://www.nplus1.net/       Author, Eterm (www.eterm.org)
 "When I hear about people making vast fortunes without doing any
  productive work or contributing anything to society, my reaction is,
  'How do I get in on that?'"                            -- Dave Barry