Comments on: Wordpress rally http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally Technology Mon, 01 Dec 2008 17:19:46 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.5 By: Charleen http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-7677 Charleen Fri, 24 Aug 2007 22:52:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-7677 Over the past two days, I've debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth. Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn't need me jumping into his playground, fists flying. I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments. Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :) Over the past two days, I’ve debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.
Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn’t need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.
I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.
Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :)

]]> By: Charleen http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-65783 Charleen Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:52:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-65783 Over the past two days, I've debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.<br>Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn't need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.<br>I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.<br>Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :) Over the past two days, I’ve debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.
Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn’t need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.
I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.
Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :)

]]> By: Charleen http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-79808 Charleen Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:52:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-79808 Over the past two days, I've debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.<br>Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn't need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.<br>I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.<br>Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :) Over the past two days, I’ve debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.
Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn’t need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.
I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.
Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :)

]]> By: Charleen http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-83161 Charleen Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:52:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-83161 Over the past two days, I've debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.<br>Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn't need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.<br>I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.<br>Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :) Over the past two days, I’ve debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.
Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn’t need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.
I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.
Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :)

]]> By: Charleen http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-87385 Charleen Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:52:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-87385 Over the past two days, I've debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.<br>Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn't need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.<br>I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.<br>Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :) Over the past two days, I’ve debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.
Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn’t need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.
I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.
Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :)

]]> By: Charleen http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-90202 Charleen Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:52:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-90202 Over the past two days, I've debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.<br>Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn't need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.<br>I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.<br>Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :) Over the past two days, I’ve debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.
Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn’t need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.
I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.
Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :)

]]> By: Charleen http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-97811 Charleen Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:52:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-97811 Over the past two days, I've debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.<br>Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn't need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.<br>I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.<br>Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :) Over the past two days, I’ve debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.
Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn’t need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.
I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.
Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :)

]]> By: Charleen http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-98640 Charleen Fri, 24 Aug 2007 20:52:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-98640 Over the past two days, I've debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.<br>Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn't need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.<br>I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.<br>Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :) Over the past two days, I’ve debated responding to that article, and have decided that it would cause more trouble than it was worth.
Besides, I think Matt acquitted himself very well, and doesn’t need me jumping into his playground, fists flying.
I do find it fascinating how the comments divided themselves so clearly into Matt-haters and non-Matt-haters. Not even WP-haters and non WP-haters. Not only did the article start that way, but the author actively encouraged the conversation to break down to that in his comments.
Anyway, thank you for so much for putting your opinions into the mix in a far less negative place for me to go :)

]]> By: JaredB http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-7679 JaredB Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:38:19 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-7679 I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself. Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it. The bottom line is that Duncan's whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt's position ("making money is bad" - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can't see that for some reason. I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.

Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.

The bottom line is that Duncan’s whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt’s position (”making money is bad” - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can’t see that for some reason.

]]> By: adam http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-7678 adam Wed, 22 Aug 2007 18:33:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-7678 pfft. rally around matt? no thanks. the default blogroll is not a "good example". a Good Example would be a link to wordpress.org, a link to the forums, and a link to the codex. there's a reason the blogroll hasn't been updated since 1.2 (i can't be sure). it is spammy, matt knows it, so he's leaving it there as a mistake he's not sure how to correct. if he updates it, it means he still thinks it's valid. so no, it isn't providing credit to the developer community. it's providing credit to very few people, most of whom have left the development community. his point about pligg is valid, although in his post it's hard to get from his post that he's not equating pligg with vanilla. pfft.

rally around matt? no thanks. the default blogroll is not a “good example”. a Good Example would be a link to wordpress.org, a link to the forums, and a link to the codex.

there’s a reason the blogroll hasn’t been updated since 1.2 (i can’t be sure). it is spammy, matt knows it, so he’s leaving it there as a mistake he’s not sure how to correct. if he updates it, it means he still thinks it’s valid. so no, it isn’t providing credit to the developer community. it’s providing credit to very few people, most of whom have left the development community.

his point about pligg is valid, although in his post it’s hard to get from his post that he’s not equating pligg with vanilla.

]]> By: JaredB http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-65782 JaredB Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:38:19 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-65782 I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.<br><br>Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.<br><br>The bottom line is that Duncan's whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt's position ("making money is bad" - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can't see that for some reason. I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.

Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.

The bottom line is that Duncan’s whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt’s position (”making money is bad” - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can’t see that for some reason.

]]> By: JaredB http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-79807 JaredB Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:38:19 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-79807 I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.<br><br>Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.<br><br>The bottom line is that Duncan's whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt's position ("making money is bad" - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can't see that for some reason. I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.

Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.

The bottom line is that Duncan’s whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt’s position (”making money is bad” - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can’t see that for some reason.

]]> By: JaredB http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-83160 JaredB Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:38:19 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-83160 I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.<br><br>Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.<br><br>The bottom line is that Duncan's whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt's position ("making money is bad" - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can't see that for some reason. I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.

Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.

The bottom line is that Duncan’s whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt’s position (”making money is bad” - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can’t see that for some reason.

]]> By: JaredB http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-87384 JaredB Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:38:19 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-87384 I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.<br><br>Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.<br><br>The bottom line is that Duncan's whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt's position ("making money is bad" - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can't see that for some reason. I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.

Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.

The bottom line is that Duncan’s whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt’s position (”making money is bad” - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can’t see that for some reason.

]]> By: JaredB http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-90201 JaredB Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:38:19 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-90201 I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.<br><br>Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.<br><br>The bottom line is that Duncan's whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt's position ("making money is bad" - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can't see that for some reason. I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.

Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.

The bottom line is that Duncan’s whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt’s position (”making money is bad” - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can’t see that for some reason.

]]> By: JaredB http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-97810 JaredB Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:38:19 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-97810 I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.<br><br>Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.<br><br>The bottom line is that Duncan's whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt's position ("making money is bad" - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can't see that for some reason. I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.

Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.

The bottom line is that Duncan’s whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt’s position (”making money is bad” - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can’t see that for some reason.

]]> By: JaredB http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-98639 JaredB Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:38:19 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-98639 I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.<br><br>Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.<br><br>The bottom line is that Duncan's whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt's position ("making money is bad" - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can't see that for some reason. I just read the article and some of the comments (all of the ones from Duncan and Matt, plus a few others), and commented on it myself.

Matt did a very fine job of defending himself in the comments, and I hesitated to even bother commenting myself, because it seems obvious that the author is just not getting it, and (furthermore) not willing to get it.

The bottom line is that Duncan’s whole point is based on a misrepresentation of Matt’s position (”making money is bad” - which Matt never said), and since he got that completely wrong his whole argument falls apart; he just can’t see that for some reason.

]]> By: adam http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-65781 adam Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:33:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-65781 pfft.<br><br>rally around matt? no thanks. the default blogroll is not a "good example". a Good Example would be a link to <a href="http://wordpress.org">wordpress.org</a>, a link to the forums, and a link to the codex.<br><br>there's a reason the blogroll hasn't been updated since 1.2 (i can't be sure). it is spammy, matt knows it, so he's leaving it there as a mistake he's not sure how to correct. if he updates it, it means he still thinks it's valid. so no, it isn't providing credit to the developer community. it's providing credit to very few people, most of whom have left the development community.<br><br>his point about pligg is valid, although in his post it's hard to get from his post that he's not equating pligg with vanilla. pfft.

rally around matt? no thanks. the default blogroll is not a “good example”. a Good Example would be a link to wordpress.org, a link to the forums, and a link to the codex.

there’s a reason the blogroll hasn’t been updated since 1.2 (i can’t be sure). it is spammy, matt knows it, so he’s leaving it there as a mistake he’s not sure how to correct. if he updates it, it means he still thinks it’s valid. so no, it isn’t providing credit to the developer community. it’s providing credit to very few people, most of whom have left the development community.

his point about pligg is valid, although in his post it’s hard to get from his post that he’s not equating pligg with vanilla.

]]> By: adam http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-79806 adam Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:33:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-79806 pfft.<br><br>rally around matt? no thanks. the default blogroll is not a "good example". a Good Example would be a link to <a href="http://wordpress.org">wordpress.org</a>, a link to the forums, and a link to the codex.<br><br>there's a reason the blogroll hasn't been updated since 1.2 (i can't be sure). it is spammy, matt knows it, so he's leaving it there as a mistake he's not sure how to correct. if he updates it, it means he still thinks it's valid. so no, it isn't providing credit to the developer community. it's providing credit to very few people, most of whom have left the development community.<br><br>his point about pligg is valid, although in his post it's hard to get from his post that he's not equating pligg with vanilla. pfft.

rally around matt? no thanks. the default blogroll is not a “good example”. a Good Example would be a link to wordpress.org, a link to the forums, and a link to the codex.

there’s a reason the blogroll hasn’t been updated since 1.2 (i can’t be sure). it is spammy, matt knows it, so he’s leaving it there as a mistake he’s not sure how to correct. if he updates it, it means he still thinks it’s valid. so no, it isn’t providing credit to the developer community. it’s providing credit to very few people, most of whom have left the development community.

his point about pligg is valid, although in his post it’s hard to get from his post that he’s not equating pligg with vanilla.

]]> By: adam http://dancameron.org/general/wordpress-rally#comment-83159 adam Wed, 22 Aug 2007 16:33:40 +0000 http://dancameron.org/new/?p=1882#comment-83159 pfft.<br><br>rally around matt? no thanks. the default blogroll is not a "good example". a Good Example would be a link to <a href="http://wordpress.org">wordpress.org</a>, a link to the forums, and a link to the codex.<br><br>there's a reason the blogroll hasn't been updated since 1.2 (i can't be sure). it is spammy, matt knows it, so he's leaving it there as a mistake he's not sure how to correct. if he updates it, it means he still thinks it's valid. so no, it isn't providing credit to the developer community. it's providing credit to very few people, most of whom have left the development community.<br><br>his point about pligg is valid, although in his post it's hard to get from his post that he's not equating pligg with vanilla. pfft.

rally around matt? no thanks. the default blogroll is not a “good example”. a Good Example would be a link to wordpress.org, a link to the forums, and a link to the codex.

there’s a reason the blogroll hasn’t been updated since 1.2 (i can’t be sure). it is spammy, matt knows it, so he’s leaving it there as a mistake he’s not sure how to correct. if he updates it, it means he still thinks it’s valid. so no, it isn’t providing credit to the developer community. it’s providing credit to very few people, most of whom have left the development community.

his point about pligg is valid, although in his post it’s hard to get from his post that he’s not equating pligg with vanilla.

]]>