CORE - Altering Behaviour of "each do" (default param "item")

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Providing help is a personal matter for many people. You won’t get friends here as long as you snub everyone who is questioning your approach or
motivation. This is help as well and demands proper handling on the personal level from your side, too.

Still, this is *ruby-talk* primarily, even if you are using it over a Usenet gateway. You are free to open up mailing lists named ruby-request or
ruby-support. Let’s see how many people want to subscribe those and focus on your topics in the way and with the level of focus you want.

I am free to use this resource to post topics subjecting the ruby
language.

You are *not* free to bombard those topics with off-topic comments.

You *are* free to setup a filter, thus you don't see my messages/
topics anymore.

It's as easy as that.

And please: refrain from further off-topic messages.

It's really enough.

..

 

[Josh Cheek]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

I've chosen ruby for my own projects and thus I like to avoid to work
in another languages

Curious, based on your questions it looks like you chose some other
language.

 

[Matthias Wächter]

I am free to use this resource to post topics subjecting the ruby
language.

You are *not* free to bombard those topics with off-topic comments.

It depends solely on what you define »the topic«. You seem to have talent in making yourself the topic and not taking notice of that. That’s your
fault, not the other’s. So if you want to avoid being called rude, just _try_ to keep your wording easy and indicate thankfulness. (There is a
well-meant advice in it and I expect thankfulness for that as well).

You *are* free to setup a filter, thus you don't see my messages/
topics anymore.

So are you.

 

[Michael Sokol]

[Note: parts of this message were removed to make it a legal post.]

Let's just ignore him, shall we?
He already abused our time, patience and kindness. Let's follow JEG's advice.

Michaël Sokol

 

[Robert Klemme]

You are *not* free to bombard those topics with off-topic comments.

Actually, this assessment is wrong.

robert

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

It depends

[...] - (twisted views of in-topic and forced thankfulness)

So are you.

I can filter you.

But your off-topic-babbling is archived.

..

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

There is another approach which does not suffer from the side effect of

[...]

Note to readers:

This approach is not usable in the given context (Altering Behaviours
of "each do").

The code can *possibly* altered, thus it works on Array#each.

For a solution which works exactly in the given context (Array#each),
see message from "James Gray" below (you can ignore all following
messages, they are off-topic).

..

 

[David Masover]

For a solution which works exactly in the given context (Array#each),
see message from "James Gray" below (you can ignore all following
messages, they are off-topic).

Off the topic of what, exactly?

http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/

"Ruby-Talk
This is the most popular mailing-list and deals with general topics about
Ruby. Ruby-Talk is mirrored by the comp.lang.ruby newsgroup and Ruby-
Forum.com."

http://rubyhacker.com/clrFAQ.html

"Examples of relevant postings include, but are not limited
to, the following subjects:

- Bug reports
- Announcements of software written with Ruby
- Examples of Ruby code
- Suggestions for Ruby developers
- Requests for help from new Ruby programmers"

When people offer you a suggestion, Ilias, that's not offtopic. It's exactly
the opposite of offtopic -- "Suggestions for Ruby developers" is in the
official comp.lang.ruby charter as a relevant topic.

 

[David Masover]

Have you checked the validity of this information? It was copied from
a wikipedia "article" (the original article was deleted, due to
violation of the wikipedia policies).

Probably this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ilias_Lazaridis

It doesn't seem that "violation" was the primary concern, so much as that
there wasn't enough reliable information to back it up. If that wasn't the
case, I have to imagine that "notability" would've kicked in.

The most important thing to learn is:

when is it "expressing negative feelings" and when is it "defamation
of character":

Legal threats again? Is this the only way you can get anyone to take you
seriously?

Alright, I'll use your source this time:

http://www.lawinfo.com/fuseaction/Client.lawarea/categoryid/1162

"Defamation is false and unprivileged spoken words or written publication,
which exposes any living person to hatred, contempt, ridicule, or which causes
him/her to be shunned or avoided, or which has a tendency to injure him/her in
his/her trade or occupation."

So, for you to show that this has occurred, you need to demonstrate that not
only are these things false, but that they actually cause you to be shunned,
avoided, hated, ridiculed, etc. I don't think anything anyone else has said
about you so far has done more damage to your reputation than you have,
yourself, in very nearly every exchange.

In particular:

"a false statement of fact;
that is understood as
being of and concerning the plaintiff; and
tending to harm the reputation of plaintiff."

Is anyone here making any false statements of _fact_ about you?

Now, let's look at possible defenses, if you actually sued one of us:

"What defenses may be available to someone who is sued for defamation?
There are ordinarily 6 possible defenses available to a defendant who is sued
for libel (published defamatory communication.)
1. Truth. This is a complete defense, but may be difficult to prove."

While it may be difficult to show that you're a troll, many of the other
statements about you should be relatively easy to prove, especially when
everything you say has been archived.

" 2. Fair comment on a matter of public interest. This defense applies to
"opinion" only, as compared to a statement of fact. The defendant usually
needs to prove that the opinion is honestly held and the comments were not
motivated by actual "malice." (Malice means knowledge of falsity or reckless
disregard for the truth of falsity of the defamatory statement.)"

Most of the statements which seem to bother you so much are also statements of
opinion -- for instance, "It's not worth our time to respond to Ilias
anymore."

" 6. Plaintiff's poor reputation. Defendant can mitigate (lessen) damages for
a defamatory statement by proving that the plaintiff did not have a good
reputation to begin with. Defendant ordinarily can prove plaintiff's poor
reputation by calling witnesses with knowledge of the plaintiff's prior
reputation relating to the defamatory content."

And there are all kinds of witnesses here.

If you (people) continue to attack me on a *professional* level, I'll
have to react at some point.

Please do.

If you do end up suing for defamation, while it's going to suck for whoever
ends up defending, it's also likely to make your reputation that much worse,
and more widespread. It would be incredibly self-defeating, and all kinds of
fun to watch.

If you instead react by trying to learn why it is that you're getting these
comments -- you could start by actually reading them, instead of writing them
off as "off-topic" or "personal" -- then your reputation would likely improve
dramatically, as would your productivity and your contributions to the
community. People would _want_ to help you, instead of wanting you to go away.

So, please, set a filter, don't read or go get a dog.

It's clear that you've already either filtered me or chosen to ignore
everything I have to say. Ah, well. Hopefully this exchange is useful to
someone else, and it will satisfy my curiosity as to whether there's anyone
who actually agrees you here.

Or stay calm and focus on the technical stuff.

Gladly, on the condition that you will do the same. That means being willing
to discuss some context, what problem you're actually trying to solve, and
where your "requirements" are coming from.

 

[Robert Klemme]

[...]

There is another approach which does not suffer from the side effect of

[...]

Note to readers:

This approach is not usable in the given context (Altering Behaviours
of "each do").

The code can *possibly* altered, thus it works on Array#each.

For a solution which works exactly in the given context (Array#each),
see message from "James Gray" below (you can ignore all following
messages, they are off-topic).

If you look close enough you will notice that *both* approaches work
(or don't) the same way with regard to #each - for the same reason!

robert

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Off the topic of what, exactly?

http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/

"Ruby-Talk
  This is the most popular mailing-list and deals with general topics about
Ruby. Ruby-Talk is mirrored by the comp.lang.ruby newsgroup and Ruby-
Forum.com."

http://rubyhacker.com/clrFAQ.html

"Examples of relevant postings include, but are not limited
        to, the following subjects:

        - Bug reports
        - Announcements of software written with Ruby
        - Examples of Ruby code
        - Suggestions for Ruby developers
        - Requests for help from new Ruby programmers"

When people offer you a suggestion, Ilias, that's not offtopic. It's exactly
the opposite of offtopic -- "Suggestions for Ruby developers" is in the
official comp.lang.ruby charter as a relevant topic.

You like quoting.

Still, your message is 100% off-topic.

But I'll back off, before people start to suggest cook-recipes or new
techniques of how to go pee.

Really unbelievable all this.

..

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

2011/6/5 Ilias Lazaridis <[email protected]>

There is another approach which does not suffer from the side effect of [...]

Note to readers:

This approach is not usable in the given context (Altering Behaviours
of "each do").

The code can *possibly* altered, thus it works on Array#each.

For a solution which works exactly in the given context (Array#each),
see message from "James Gray" below (you can ignore all following
messages, they are off-topic).

If you look close enough you will notice that *both* approaches work
(or don't) the same way with regard to #each - for the same reason!

I don't have to "look close enough"

This was the original context (specification):

names = ["Jane", "Michele", "Isabella"]
# current behaviour
names.each do |name|
print name
end
#Question: How can I alter the behaviour of "each" in the following
way:
names.each do
print item # "item" is used by default
end

The specification is very simple.

Your solution does not work in this context.

The solution from Gray works 100%.

If you like, you can still modify your solution to pass the
specification.

If not, feel free to setup a new context (specification), but please
use a new topic.

..

 

[Robert Klemme]

[...]
There is another approach which does not suffer from the side effectof
[...]

Note to readers:

This approach is not usable in the given context (Altering Behaviours
of "each do").

The code can *possibly* altered, thus it works on Array#each.

For a solution which works exactly in the given context (Array#each),
see message from "James Gray" below (you can ignore all following
messages, they are off-topic).

If you look close enough you will notice that *both* approaches work
(or don't) the same way with regard to #each - for the same reason!

I don't have to "look close enough"

That speaks for itself.

Your solution does not work in this context.

The solution from Gray works 100%.

Well, yes and no. From what I read I'd say you are not aware of all the
consequences. The reason is probably that you do not look closer. It's
your choice of course but it makes me feel uncomfortable to see people
running away with solutions which they do not seem to understand.
Usually this causes some smaller or larger disaster later on.

Over and out.

robert

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

That speaks for itself.

I don't have to "look close enough" (only in the given context that
I've choose to set)

Well, yes and no.  From what I read I'd say you are not aware of allthe
consequences.  The reason is probably that you do not look closer.  It's
your choice of course but it makes me feel uncomfortable to see people
running away with solutions which they do not seem to understand.
Usually this causes some smaller or larger disaster later on.

I understand perfectly (in the given context that I've choose to set)

In a production app, I would set a complete different context.

Over and out.

Hope this is a promise.

Cu in another thread (hopefully less verbose and more in context)

..

 

[Leigh McGaughy]

I'm looking for a recipe for "slow roasted Lizard"


-----Original Message-----
From: Ilias Lazaridis [mailto:[email protected]]=20
Sent: Monday, June 06, 2011 3:11 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: CORE - Altering Behaviour of "each do" (default param =
"item")

Off the topic of what, exactly?

http://www.ruby-lang.org/en/community/mailing-lists/

"Ruby-Talk
=A0 This is the most popular mailing-list and deals with general = topics
about
Ruby. Ruby-Talk is mirrored by the comp.lang.ruby newsgroup and Ruby-
Forum.com."

http://rubyhacker.com/clrFAQ.html

"Examples of relevant postings include, but are not limited
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 to, the following subjects:

=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Bug reports
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Announcements of software written with Ruby
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Examples of Ruby code
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Suggestions for Ruby developers
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 - Requests for help from new Ruby programmers"

When people offer you a suggestion, Ilias, that's not offtopic. It's exactly
the opposite of offtopic -- "Suggestions for Ruby developers" is in = the
official comp.lang.ruby charter as a relevant topic.

You like quoting.

Still, your message is 100% off-topic.

But I'll back off, before people start to suggest cook-recipes or new
techniques of how to go pee.

Really unbelievable all this.

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

Probably this page:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ilias_La...

It doesn't seem that "violation" was the primary concern, so much as that
there wasn't enough reliable information to back it up. If that wasn't the
case, I have to imagine that "notability" would've kicked in.

" The article is one of these "I want to attack the guy without
crossing the Wikipedia blatant personnal attack line" "

Legal threats again?

There is no threat, you just interpret one.

Is this the only way you can get anyone to take you seriously?
Alright, I'll use your source this time:

[...] - aborted reading, due to time constraints.

I don't care if you (or people of your kind) take me serious.

Simply because I don't take you serious.

Within open discussion groups, I respect and take serious (on a
professional level) only those who stay in-topic and in-context. Those
who *not* bombard me with tons of irrelevant details, just to cover
their own inablitiy or ignorance, or simply just to have to say
something in a lonely evening.

I respect people which have the discipline to stay unbiased, even if
they have possible negative personal feelings against me (e.g. because
the dislike mey *personal* writing style, which is part of my
individuality.).

I respect people which understand that there is a difference between
"analytic ability" and "knowledge", and that knowledge can many times
reduce the analytic ability, thus it must be assimilated with care.

I respect them and take them serious, because those are the people
which can evolve a system (like a programming language) in an
efficient way.

-

Please!

Stay in-topic and in-context - or stay out of the topics.

You owe this not only to me, but to every current and future reader of
the archives.

-

If you have an unresistable need to express yourself, simply open a
new topic with an "[OT]" (off-topic) marker, e.g.:

[OT] The unbelieavable attitude of Mr. Ilias Lazaridis

and write whatever you like. It's far more professional than to
destroy a clearly technical thread with 80% irrelevant content.

..

 

[David Masover]

=20
" The article is one of these "I want to attack the guy without
crossing the Wikipedia blatant personnal attack line" "

That was one opinion. Others were:

"Speedy Delete Wikipedia is not a blog."

"the problem here is that while you might have found the article useful, we=
=20
cannot guarantee its reliability and that's a big problem."

Note that even the quote you pointed out suggests that it _doesn't_ cross t=
hat=20
line. If the issue were only that it was a personal attack, or abusive, it=
=20
could've probably been rewritten from a neutral point of view. The more=20
obvious criteria for deletion are whether or not it's actually notable, or=
=20
contains any verifiable information.

=20
There is no threat, you just interpret one.

Then what would you call this?

"If you (people) continue to attack me on a professional level, I'll
have to react at some point."

This immediately after your comment about defamation of character. I suppos=
e=20
it's theoretically possible you didn't intend it, but the subtext is clear:=
=20
Stop saying mean things about me or I'll sue for defamation.

Is this the only way you can get anyone to take you seriously? =20
Alright, I'll use your source this time:

[...] - aborted reading, due to time constraints.

Bullshit. We've already established that you have more than enough time,=20
mostly because of how inefficient your methods are. You've already spent mo=
re=20
time responding to me than it would take to answer the questions asked in s=
ome=20
of your recent topics.

I don't care if you (or people of your kind) take me serious.

Yes, you do, or why would you continue to threaten me (or people of "my kin=
d",=20
whatever that is) with legal action?

=46or that matter, why would you continue to ask questions? You even pointe=
d out=20
that James Gray's solution "looks very good, and seems to work as expected"=
--=20
surely there would be an advantage to having someone who can consistently=20
provide solutions like that actually take you seriously, instead of doing=20
their best to ignore you?

I respect people which have the discipline to stay unbiased, even if
they have possible negative personal feelings against me (e.g. because
the dislike mey *personal* writing style, which is part of my
individuality.).

"Part of your individuality" apparently involves:

- Making legal threats at the slightest provocation
- Marking all questions as urgent ("BARRIER" or "CORE")
- Not reading any answers "too complicated"
- "Summarizing" (read: strawmanning), rather than quoting in your replies
- Dismissing as "offtopic" or "unprofessional" anyone who asks for enough=
=20
context to give you a good answer, or who points out any of the above.

There's individuality, and then there's rudeness. If "part of your=20
individuality" is to be insufferably rude to those who are genuinely trying=
to=20
help you, that suggests you're the sort of individual I wouldn't want to kn=
ow.

I respect people which understand that there is a difference between
"analytic ability" and "knowledge", and that knowledge can many times
reduce the analytic ability, thus it must be assimilated with care.

In other words: You actually want to know *less*, not more. Wow.

Stay in-topic and in-context - or stay out of the topics.
=20
You owe this not only to me, but to every current and future reader of
the archives.

=46irst: I don't owe you anything. I gave you the benefit of the doubt when=
I=20
first started reading, but given responses like these, nope, not even that.

Second: This is an open forum. You in no way control it, and neither do I. =
You=20
have no more call than I do to tell anyone to "stay out of the topics."

It's far more professional than to
destroy a clearly technical thread with 80% irrelevant content.

Ilias, as unlikely as it is that you'll actually read this far -- you seem =
to=20
have far more time to write a response than you do to actually read what=20
you're responding to -- seriously, consider this:

Well above 90% of the threads on this list do not end up this way.

Most simple questions are answered quickly, within a single message, and=20
several people will rush to respond with an answer.

Most threads which devolve into offtopic stuff like this end up with one or=
=20
two people arguing back and forth, or with a group of people on both sides.=
=20
It's much rarer for there to be one person arguing against every single oth=
er=20
poster who has an opinion. Usually this indicates a newbie who's asked a=20
stupid question, so usually it's friendly, they learn what they need to lea=
rn,=20
and they come back more intelligent -- so it's even less common for everyon=
e=20
who has an opinion on someone's etiquette or personal conduct to side again=
st=20
them.

Well over half your threads end up this way, with three or four well-respec=
ted=20
people telling you the same things I have been, quite a few avoiding the=20
discussion but talking about how to add you to a killfile, and several chim=
ing=20
in every now and then with cheap shots.

This is *incredibly* unusual. I can't ever remember seeing this kind of=20
behavior with other people in the years I've been active here. Even spammer=
s=20
don't elicit the same amount of contempt you have from the entire community.

If you would like to not have "80% irrelevant content," it is in your own b=
est=20
interest to figure out what it is about your attitude and conduct that lead=
s=20
to this.

It's also in the best interests of the community, because personal issues=20
aside, it's clear that you are intelligent enough to have something to=20
contribute, and I'd much rather have you as a productive member of the=20
community than effectively a troll. But no amount of "posting on-topic" wil=
l=20
do that. That's something you have to do yourself.

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

That was one opinion.

[...]

This was the initial deletion reason (and the reality).

[...]
aborted reading (It's just too much babbling).

Have fun!

..

 

[David Masover]

=20
That was one opinion.

=20
[...]
=20
This was the initial deletion reason (and the reality).

Actually, not really. Even in the inital reason (which has no special statu=
s=20
above the others), we see the actual reason: "In any case, no third-party=20
reliable coverage seems to exist on the guy (despite high Ghits of course) =
so=20
there's really nothing to build an article from."

Exactly one other comment mentions this being an attack. There's another on=
e=20
that's vague, and another two for "keep", one which says: "The article's to=
ne=20
isn=E2=80=99t vengeful or accusing either. If Paris Hilton has an article, =
then why=20
not Ilias?"

Maybe it was the reality, but I can't tell from looking at that deletion=20
decision, though I agree with the decision on other grounds. (There's all=20
sorts of reliable sources for information about Paris Hilton, and like her =
or=20
not, she's notable.)

[...]
aborted reading (It's just too much babbling).

Called it. Plenty of time, but no patience.

Still odd to see a TL;DR on ruby-talk, though.

 

[Ilias Lazaridis]

[...] - (excellent analysis which quotes some anonymous comments and a
fascinating analogy to Paris Hilton)

Now I see!

I accept what is proofed without doubt:

The article (written mostly by one person and a 2nd one which added
some spices, both from the python domain) was *not* deleted because it
was crossing the "personal attack line" of wikipedia (= writing
nonsense about a person on a personal/professional level, without any
backup)

The article was deleted, because of the "notability" (= my person is
not notable enough to get an wikipedia article).

-

And then one wonders why I neither respect you (people) nor take you
serious.

See, I don't care if I'm notable or not.

I'll just repeat what I've said earlier, as this is the main essence:

"If you (people) continue to attack me on a *professional* level,
I'll
have to react at some point."

..