From: Chris Pine <glyconis@...>
Date: 2005-04-20T22:59:18+09:00
Subject: Re: [EVALUATION] - E03d - The Ruby Object Model (End Game)

> How do I include the construct:
> 
> (class<<Object; self; end)
> 
> conveniently into the definition of "Class"?

Oh. My. God.

I can't believe you just asked that.  How many thousands of lines ago
were people urging you PLEASE go read something really intelligent
answering exactly your questions?

  http://whytheluckystiff.net/articles/seeingMetaclassesClearly.html

Look, I know you won't read it, but at least try to get 1/4 of your
way through just the first code example.

Go ahead.

Do you see it?  Does it look familiar??  Do you think that, just
maybe, the people on this list are actually really, really helpful
people?  Maybe you should read the help they try to give you?

You speak of efficiency.  Well,
let-me-tell-you-something-about-efficiency, mister:  THESE LAST
HUNDRED POSTS WERE NOT AN EFFICIENT WAY OF OBTAINING THE KNOWLEDGE YOU
DESIRE!  In fact, I can not imagine a *less* efficient (but ultimately
successful) way to do so.

Perhaps it would help you to view this mailing list as a system, not
as a collection of humans like yourself.  (In fact, I know of no one
quite like you... I mean that not insultingly, nor complimentarily,
just factually.)  This system can be used effectively, or poorly.  If
you choose to use it, you might as well try to use it effectively.

Here are some efficiency tips for you:
1.  Read the answers other people give you.  Assign them a high
    probability of being right, and try to adjust your own
    understanding accordingly.
2.  Don't tell them they are wrong.  *Especially* when they
    are not!  (But find better ways to tell them, even if they are wrong.)
3.  Admit when you have made a mistake.  This one
    is tough, but it's *really* important.  Otherwise efficiency
    drops way off after that point.

And you have made mistakes.  For example, you claimed on several
occasions that metaclasses don't exist.  Now you know they do.  I'm
not saying it's your fault (though the documentation is right there in
ri class, but whatever), just that you said something false to
someone.  It's not about fault, or admitting fault; it's about fact.

If you want that person to help you in the future, I suggest
apologizing.  Again, if it helps to think of the ML as a system, and
apologies the grease, that's fine.  But I think it's pretty clear that
your dealings with the ML have been far less effective than most
people's.

I think some self-evaluation, at least in this respect, is in order.

Chris