Re: Another Perspective on the Cause of the Keyhole Problem

Matthew Heaney wrote:
> My advice is to just write the book you want to write.  If someone is
> offended by your argument, then too bad for them.
>
> If you think you're right, then don't apologize for it.  Put it out
> there and the market will settle the matter.

IMO this is only so simple if you don't care about the effects.  Scott's
idea or at least the viewpoint is new.  He provides a structured insight
into a problem area. It was only a set of undescribed annoyances, now
put into place in a new "theory".  If this theory is introduced on a way
that what alienates people it will be very hard to get it accepted
later, even if it is rephrased.  I am not saying this is the case.  But
as I understood this was what people asserted.  As I understood Scott
really cares about this issue and to get it accepted in the industry.  I
think being diplomatic is a small price to pay to get to that result.

However since I am not a native English speaker and I myself get into
trouble (many times) because I word my opinions in ways what people find
rude I am most probably not the one to judge the case. ;-)  I believe
Scott is quite capable of doing it.  All I wanted to say here is that
the issue (if it is there) is not one to be ignored.  One thing I have
learnt during the years around programmers is that I am not the only one
having an Ego. ;-)  And one thing you do not want to do when trying to
convince the programmer kind is to step into their Ego. :-)  What
happens is: you will be right, but you will still loose the argument.
Interesting phenomenon, and it is probably not limited to programmers
and to my ex-girlfriend.  They even possibly expelicitely admit you are
right and be annoyed about it.  But not change their ways a bit.  I call
it the 4 inch bullet-proof glass effect.  When it shuts down (within a
fraction of a second) nothing will penetrate it for a long time.

White Wolf