In article <5imhdo$hvj@Masala.CC.UH.EDU>, cosc19z5@Bayou.UH.EDU
|> Is that also the reason why you didn't bother answering any of the
|> numerous posts that raised very legitimate questions about your
|> motivations, and Tcl in general?
|> I find it very interesting that you ignored all these interesting
|> posts, and when you chose to followup, you chose a followup where
|> you cut everything except one passage that necessitated nothing
|> more than a smug response on your behalf.
|> You know, if I didn't know any better I'd say you were avoiding
|> the other posts. I wonder why?
I would be delighted to debate this topic in a moderated forum where we can
keep the discussion on track, such as a conference panel discussion.
Unfortunately, it isn't really possible to sustain a coherent debate on
a hot topic via unmoderated newsgroups. The discussion very quickly fragments
into dozens of sub-topics that drift off the main thread of discussion. I'm
too swamped to respond to each of the hundreds of arguments that have been
made (many of which do have merit), and if I did, each of those responses
would generate 30 more counter-responses that would be even harder to
respond to. When the topic first arose I tried to collect the most common
arguments, and I've posted a couple of articles that responded to them. After
that, things just got too fragmented for me to respond in a meaningful way.
Witness your message, where you put forth a corporate conspiracy theory
instead of a technical argument, and this message, where we're arguing about
whether I've responded enough, rather than the technical issues. I am reading
all the messages, though, and I'll try to respond to some of the arguments
when I revise the white paper over the next couple of weeks.
Or, look at it this way: if I don't respond then you get the last word :-)