On Mon, Jul 25, 2011 at 8:28 AM, Mark Rathwell <mark.rathw...@gmail.com> wrote: > Colin, > I don't think anyone responding was doing so with the mindset of "my way or > the highway" and "we must defend the great leader's achievements". Speaking > for myself, I responded to an argument that did not make sense, that > argument being basically: "Crockford says javascript can be written a > certain way, jQuery generally follows this pattern and it is popular, Google > Closure does not follow this pattern in some ways and is not as popular, > therefore it should not be used for ClojureScript". > > Nobody is shooting down "I love it" type posts because they do come off as > intentionally inflammatory. The titles of these posts seem aimed to incite > controversy and ruffle feathers (as does the content), rather than seriously > inquire about the rationale. And the arguments are generally recaps of > articles that agree with the author, rather than actual pain points hit when > trying to create something with Clojure or ClojureScript. The responses > throwing "troll" around are the attempt of the community to point out that > this list's main purpose is to help people, not for inflammatory content > that belongs in blog posts.
Be that as it may, it has been my experience that throwing the term "troll" around itself is inflammatory and generates more heat than light. It's easily abused to dismiss without consideration (and to try to get others to do likewise) an argument you disagree with, for example, as well as frequently misapplied by accident. (It should be properly reserved for those who quite intentionally are posting solely to stir up noise -- not just anyone whose posts have that effect even unintentionally, let alone where the main stirring up of noise is coming from the use of the word "troll" itself or from other name-calling directed AT the alleged troll.) The best thing to do if you suspect some post may be a troll is to *ignore it*. Flaming it and/or calling its author names will, if you're wrong, alienate what might be a useful contributor to the group, and if you're right, feed the troll. I doubt you wish to do either. > As for responding with "OK, this guy clearly doesn't get it - how can we > improve our communication", this goes back to the intent of the author. I > don't think the intent was to "get" anything, I think the intent was to > incite. The evidence is, thus far, equivocal on that score. > The best response to this is to ignore it, and that is what I > should have done, but it is easier to say than to do. Ahh. That's one that is beginning to get it more, anyway. -- Protege: What is this seething mass of parentheses?! Master: Your father's Lisp REPL. This is the language of a true hacker. Not as clumsy or random as C++; a language for a more civilized age. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Clojure" group. To post to this group, send email to clojure@googlegroups.com Note that posts from new members are moderated - please be patient with your first post. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to clojure+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/clojure?hl=en
