A fine example of an ego trying to carve out a niche of superiority. Notice how Odersky has responded and the author has not addressed that comment at all. Note also how the author at the same time is bad-mouthing other comments and deeming them beneath him.
This entry was posted on Saturday, February 5th, 2011 at 12:02 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Tony Morris is very opinionated and tends to be unyielding and can be a considerable jerk, but your ad hominem attack on him is immensely stupid, and his response to you that you have nothing useful to say is spot on. There is every reason to think that TM believes every word he wrote in that critique, which is filled with substantive (even if wrong) points, yet you have nothing to say about the substance, only ridiculous nonsense about his motivation (“carving a niche”). Who the fuck cares about such details about TM? Certainly not Martin Odersky or any other intelligent person.
So it’s not useful to point out the failure of the author to address the substantive and correct points made by Odersky? Noting that Odersky and his co-authors are those that TM is attacking?
“There is every reason to think that TM believes every word he wrote in that critique, which is filled with substantive (even if wrong) points”
TM might well believe every word he says that is IMHO not a substitute for a solid argument that deals with the challenges of the likes of Odersky.
“yet you have nothing to say about the substance, only ridiculous nonsense about his motivation ”
Firstly, several other posters questioned TM’s motivation.
Secondly, why would I say anything about the substance when someone way smarter than me (Odersky) has already got there and said it better? Further, what would be the point when TM himself seems to have no interest in answering that challenging question?
Last up, if TM isn’t trying to carve himself a niche and is as egoless as you suggest thus having an entirely honourable motivation he wouldn’t be so sensitive about a single small post on delicious and rant, would he?
“So it’s not useful to point out the failure of the author to address the substantive and correct points made by Odersky?”
Odersky offered his opinion and noted that it differed from Morris’s.
“TM might well believe every word he says that is IMHO not a substitute for a solid argument that deals with the challenges of the likes of Odersky.”
The point was addressed to your comments about ego and carving a niche, which imply some motivation other than sincere belief. You are simply responding to a strawman, since I never said anything about believing what one says as being a substitute for solid argument.
“Firstly, several other posters questioned TM’s motivation.”
So fucking what?
“Secondly, why would I say anything about the substance when someone way smarter than me (Odersky) has already got there and said it better? ”
You would if you wanted to say anything useful. At the least you could have said that you think everything Martin said is correct but you didn’t even bother to do that. You didn’t even bother to characterize Martin’s comments, and still don’t other than to assert that they are correct. If you are so much less intelligent than Martin, how can you even make that judgment? How about Morris — do you think he is unintelligent? Your position seems to be that the great god Odersky has spoken and that’s the end of it. Martin would not take that approach to debate — but then, he is a lot smarter than you.
“Further, what would be the point when TM himself seems to have no interest in answering that challenging question?”
What challenging question?
“Last up, if TM isn’t trying to carve himself a niche and is as egoless as you suggest thus having an entirely honourable motivation he wouldn’t be so sensitive about a single small post on delicious and rant, would he?”
That is remarkably full of fail. I said nothing about TM not trying to carve a niche or being egoless or having honorable motivation, I merely said that there’s no reason to think he wasn’t sincere in his statements and thus no reason to think that those were his motivations in making them — and besides who the fuck cares what motivates him? And his sensitivity to your attack on him is a totally different matter. I already said he’s “very opinionated and tends to be unyielding and can be a considerable jerk”, didn’t I? So of course he’s going to react harshly when a — in his view, at least — stupid little pipsqueak like you goes after him on a post about a matter that he takes very seriously.
“Your position seems to be that the great god Odersky has spoken and that’s the end of it. Martin would not take that approach to debate — but then, he is a lot smarter than you.”
Nice – made me laugh though it’s not useful. That of course is for my definition of useful which undoubtedly is different from yours. Feel free to insult that too 😉
Like I wrote: Everybody has a different yardstick. The one I described was the consensus opinion on scala-debate when we discussed it. Not everybody needs to agree with that.
Not sure where you’re going with that. I guess you’re attempting a claim that quote renders my position invalid. Equally the quote acknowledges that we can all have our own opinions on something (although I guess you might like to say this quote only applies specifically to what you deem a useful argument).
I wrote several factual comments on Tony Morris’s blog, he even approved them, replied to them, then he didn’t like that I had proved him wrong, so he deleted everything. Click the following link for the captured evidence:
MK be very careful about defending a fraud, you can become publicly associated with it. dancres, you correctly identified that the man is not rational and objective. The evidence above suggests that he is apparently letting his ego control his mind, which is the antithesis of the search for knowledge.
I am a fledgling language designer, as well a 25 year history in computer programming, including being primary or co-author on two separate million user products at different companies. I won’t provide direct links to my work, because I don’t want to be accused of advertising. The point being Tony picked a fight with someone capable of knowing more than he does about a few things.
Normally I think politics is a complete waste of time, and I admire how Odersky typically handles debate, with one reply and out. In this case however, I think it is important to document publicly that Morris is censoring debate.
Dan Creswell's Linkblog 
Tony Morris is very opinionated and tends to be unyielding and can be a considerable jerk, but your ad hominem attack on him is immensely stupid, and his response to you that you have nothing useful to say is spot on. There is every reason to think that TM believes every word he wrote in that critique, which is filled with substantive (even if wrong) points, yet you have nothing to say about the substance, only ridiculous nonsense about his motivation (“carving a niche”). Who the fuck cares about such details about TM? Certainly not Martin Odersky or any other intelligent person.
“that you have nothing useful to say is spot on.”
So it’s not useful to point out the failure of the author to address the substantive and correct points made by Odersky? Noting that Odersky and his co-authors are those that TM is attacking?
“There is every reason to think that TM believes every word he wrote in that critique, which is filled with substantive (even if wrong) points”
TM might well believe every word he says that is IMHO not a substitute for a solid argument that deals with the challenges of the likes of Odersky.
“yet you have nothing to say about the substance, only ridiculous nonsense about his motivation ”
Firstly, several other posters questioned TM’s motivation.
Secondly, why would I say anything about the substance when someone way smarter than me (Odersky) has already got there and said it better? Further, what would be the point when TM himself seems to have no interest in answering that challenging question?
Last up, if TM isn’t trying to carve himself a niche and is as egoless as you suggest thus having an entirely honourable motivation he wouldn’t be so sensitive about a single small post on delicious and rant, would he?
“So it’s not useful to point out the failure of the author to address the substantive and correct points made by Odersky?”
Odersky offered his opinion and noted that it differed from Morris’s.
“TM might well believe every word he says that is IMHO not a substitute for a solid argument that deals with the challenges of the likes of Odersky.”
The point was addressed to your comments about ego and carving a niche, which imply some motivation other than sincere belief. You are simply responding to a strawman, since I never said anything about believing what one says as being a substitute for solid argument.
“Firstly, several other posters questioned TM’s motivation.”
So fucking what?
“Secondly, why would I say anything about the substance when someone way smarter than me (Odersky) has already got there and said it better? ”
You would if you wanted to say anything useful. At the least you could have said that you think everything Martin said is correct but you didn’t even bother to do that. You didn’t even bother to characterize Martin’s comments, and still don’t other than to assert that they are correct. If you are so much less intelligent than Martin, how can you even make that judgment? How about Morris — do you think he is unintelligent? Your position seems to be that the great god Odersky has spoken and that’s the end of it. Martin would not take that approach to debate — but then, he is a lot smarter than you.
“Further, what would be the point when TM himself seems to have no interest in answering that challenging question?”
What challenging question?
“Last up, if TM isn’t trying to carve himself a niche and is as egoless as you suggest thus having an entirely honourable motivation he wouldn’t be so sensitive about a single small post on delicious and rant, would he?”
That is remarkably full of fail. I said nothing about TM not trying to carve a niche or being egoless or having honorable motivation, I merely said that there’s no reason to think he wasn’t sincere in his statements and thus no reason to think that those were his motivations in making them — and besides who the fuck cares what motivates him? And his sensitivity to your attack on him is a totally different matter. I already said he’s “very opinionated and tends to be unyielding and can be a considerable jerk”, didn’t I? So of course he’s going to react harshly when a — in his view, at least — stupid little pipsqueak like you goes after him on a post about a matter that he takes very seriously.
“So fucking what?”
🙂
“Your position seems to be that the great god Odersky has spoken and that’s the end of it. Martin would not take that approach to debate — but then, he is a lot smarter than you.”
Nice – made me laugh though it’s not useful. That of course is for my definition of useful which undoubtedly is different from yours. Feel free to insult that too 😉
From http://www.scala-lang.org/node/8610
So much for your BS.
Not sure where you’re going with that. I guess you’re attempting a claim that quote renders my position invalid. Equally the quote acknowledges that we can all have our own opinions on something (although I guess you might like to say this quote only applies specifically to what you deem a useful argument).
“So much for your BS.”
Ah, I admire your consistency 🙂
I wrote several factual comments on Tony Morris’s blog, he even approved them, replied to them, then he didn’t like that I had proved him wrong, so he deleted everything. Click the following link for the captured evidence:
http://goldwetrust.up-with.com/t112p150-computers#4288
MK be very careful about defending a fraud, you can become publicly associated with it. dancres, you correctly identified that the man is not rational and objective. The evidence above suggests that he is apparently letting his ego control his mind, which is the antithesis of the search for knowledge.
I am a fledgling language designer, as well a 25 year history in computer programming, including being primary or co-author on two separate million user products at different companies. I won’t provide direct links to my work, because I don’t want to be accused of advertising. The point being Tony picked a fight with someone capable of knowing more than he does about a few things.
Normally I think politics is a complete waste of time, and I admire how Odersky typically handles debate, with one reply and out. In this case however, I think it is important to document publicly that Morris is censoring debate.