Jesper Louis Andersen
Mon Sep 19 19:47:04 CEST 2016
Rather than joining the choir outright, I do see the complainers point.
Text is a poor medium at communicating intent and there are two ways one
can read the post, where one indeed yield sarcasm and snide remarks.
Fortunately, there is also intent, and having known Richard's writing for
more than 10 years, I can assure you no malice was intended. He even made a
post to apologize were it misunderstood. One mans aggresion is another mans
Most people mean no harm in their writings. So I'd advise people to err on
the side of misunderstanding, rather than on the side of rudeness. Of
course, some people are genuinely rude, but they tend to be few and far in
Finally, let me second Loïc. There is a current tendency in general
internet discourse toward people becoming more sensitive. That is, people
err on the opposite side of what I advise above, and take offense at other
people's writings whether it was the underlying intent or not. I think this
view has a long-term chilling effect on communities:
"I cannot give you the formula for success, but I can give you the formula
for failure - which is: Try to please everybody."
- Herbert Bayard Swope
People are excruciatingly good at finding error with your writings. You
better get used to it.
 As a regular blog poster, you simply know that once your post hits
Hacker News, then there is someone, somewhere, who derives great pleasure
and arousal from taking a single sentence--usually out of context--and
stabbing it with a knife until it dies. Then, with glee they will rejoice
having found you are not only wrong, but bloody inconsistent and factually
no better than a brown-speckled slug, whatever that is.
On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 6:28 PM, Joe Armstrong <> wrote:
> My flabber is gasted.
> I read what I assumed the posts that you referred to and am truly
> I could not detect anything that I construed as either aggressive
> or sarcastic.
> I remain very puzzled.
> On Mon, Sep 19, 2016 at 7:05 AM, <> wrote:
> > I have been taken to task in private e-mail by someone
> > who detected in my response to the "list comprehension puzzle"
> > both "aggressive sarcasm" and "undisguised contempt".
> > In all honesty, no sarcasm was intended. (A sarcastic response
> > would not have pointed to the Erlang reference manual.) Nor
> > was any contempt whatsoever involved. I should not have to
> > reassure long-term readers of this mailing list that these
> > attitudes my critic claimed to detect were entirely imaginary.
> > However, it shows that it was possible for people to misread
> > what I wrote. If anyone took offence at the message I
> > *meant* to be helpful, please accept my assurance that no
> > offence was intended and my unreserved apology for the offence.
> > _______________________________________________
> > erlang-questions mailing list
> > http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
> erlang-questions mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the erlang-questions