Even where it would have offered an advantageous contrast to my supposed hyperbole et al, where do you see sweet reason having told? - when, that is, it comes to the substantive technical critiques of the sort I'm meant to be taken at fault for declining to provide. Those critiques are still being ignored, while you sit here days later still not yet disabused of the idea you are equipped to bandy words with me.
I am not, in short, arguing here with even remotely serious people, and I show them the treatment condign upon their behavior. To do otherwise would serve only to lampoon myself, instead of them. It isn't something I expect to see appreciated by my interlocutors, including you. Its audience, if any, lies elsewhere.
I don't think you're an idiot. I think you're a smug, self-satisfied, deliberately ignorant ratiocinator who rarely understands why he succeeds and never why he fails because he does not really know how to think, although he is very sure that he does. This is the only conversation you and I can have on this website that is interesting to me, at least until you demonstrate some potential otherwise, which by now you seem as unlikely desirous as capable of doing.
If you want to boil all that down to something easier to swallow, then you're welcome. And, yes, I'm well aware that "no u" is as available a response here as previously. Do you think it will avail you more now than then?
> I was asked for an opinion and I gave one. Don't make too much of it. Rails devotees can't stand hearing a bad word about their baby, they always make a fuss.
I quote my own initial comment here, unabridged and verbatim, for the sake of adjacency with the following question: Where in this do you find a complaint?
That's a substantive question, not merely a rhetorical one. I would characterize my tone in that quote accurately as dismissive and uncharitably as contemptuous. But for the way you've talked about it now at such length, I can conclude only that I gave a mistaken impression of uncomprehending dismay. I don't understand how that could be so, given I literally do proffer an explanation for the behavior I'm meant not to comprehend; that explanation might be inaccurate and attract criticism accordingly, but to behave as though required to piece things together de novo is unwarranted. It's inconsistent to argue both that I must not understand the effect I create and that I must set out to create it, don't you think? Yet that's pretty much where you seem to end up.
You having concluded otherwise, ie that there is some essential ignorance here on my part requiring your effort to redress, I therefore ask on what basis you so conclude - the better to avoid again wasting my time, and incidentally also someone else's, in such fashion as this. Good grief, if I could've corrected that misapprehension right up front, we could've dispensed with everything after, to no doubt mutual preference.
And if you'll forgive myself quoting myself from earlier in the conversation, one more time:
> Meanwhile detailed and substantive technical critiques provided by other users - critiques of the sort I learned a decade ago not to bother making - go totally ignored as I knew that they would.