5 ms·

it's very weird of you to basically only call out the above user's actions of... being in the thread, and not the actual merits of what they're saying. many of

it's very weird of you to basically only call out the above user's actions of... being in the thread, and not the actual merits of what they're saying. many of us will laugh at you as well, because you don't add anything to the conversation but pretend like you do

wubalubadubdub 3y ago
[flagged]
- mort96 3y ago
  You can't just accuse someone of going scorched earth on others for technical criticism, without backing that up. Talk about a specific instance where he has done that, ideally with links. Just throwing accusations at people the way you're doing is actually a really shitty thing to do. Even if he was 100% guilty of all the things you claim, your conduct is not acceptable.
  - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
    > going scorched earth on others for technical criticism I said JeanHeyd doesn't appreciate technical criticism, and I said he goes full scorched earth on others. However, I mentioned both in separate sentences. Please don't twist my words. You are the one linking them both, suggesting that one happened due to the other, when in fact I was merely describing aspects of his nasty personality in general, with no suggestion that this was the path this drama developed. In this particular rust drama, JeanHeyd's pettiness caused him to go scorched earth over a perceived slight, once his talk was downgraded to a less prestigious slot. I have reiterated this over and over in several comments with you, and you keep twisting what I'm saying. JeanHeyd, and also you in another comment have claimed that there was a grand conspiracy to sabotage his work with no evidence whatsoever. The only fact in all this controversy is that he had a talk downgraded. Not even cancelled. > Just throwing accusations at people the way you're doing is actually a really shitty thing to do You should start practicing what you preach. How about providing evidence that JeanHeyds work was being sabotaged without merit? Or you just accuse others without evidence? Next time, stop changing what others are saying. Your conduct is not acceptable.
    - deleted 3y ago
      [deleted]
    - mort96 3y ago
      I have not accused anyone of sabotaging his work.
      - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
        > The very source of this issue is that there were apparently people in the leadership who took serious issues with the direction of the compile time proposal, but were seemingly unwilling to have the discussion about technical merits. Here you are doing just that. You don't have evidence for this claim. All that happened was that his talk got downgraded. That's it.
        mort96 3y ago
        The talk got downgraded due to one high-up person's serious issues with the talk, that person's concerns weren't made public, the identity of the person who had the concerns wasn't made public. Those are the facts. (Source: https://fasterthanli.me/articles/the-rustconf-keynote-fiasco-explained https://fasterthanli.me/articles/the-rustconf-keynote-fiasco...; ctrl+f concerns) I admit that I assumed that those concerns were technical (i.e "issues with the direction of the compile time proposal"). I don't have evidence for that, because the concerns weren't made public. Anyway, you're the one who's choosing to view their actions as sabotage of his work, I don't think I would characterize it like that. EDIT: I want to add, it's possible that this person who had great concerns was dtolnay and that the concerns were simply what he outlines in this post (essentially just that it wasn't ready to be featured in a keynote; source: https://gist.github.com/dtolnay/7f5da4bf057b7c6d0d00c6bed3060b96 https://gist.github.com/dtolnay/7f5da4bf057b7c6d0d00c6bed306... ctrl+f "I expressed forceful skepticism"). I hope that's not the case, since that's a really weak reason to retract a keynote invitation weeks after it was given, and seems like it could be easily solved with some disclaimers... but we can't know, since, again, nobody has publicly disclosed what the concerns were which caused the talk to be downgraded.

wubalubadubdub 3y ago

[flagged]

mort96 3y ago
You can't just accuse someone of going scorched earth on others for technical criticism, without backing that up. Talk about a specific instance where he has done that, ideally with links. Just throwing accusations at people the way you're doing is actually a really shitty thing to do. Even if he was 100% guilty of all the things you claim, your conduct is not acceptable.
- wubalubadubdub 3y ago
  > going scorched earth on others for technical criticism I said JeanHeyd doesn't appreciate technical criticism, and I said he goes full scorched earth on others. However, I mentioned both in separate sentences. Please don't twist my words. You are the one linking them both, suggesting that one happened due to the other, when in fact I was merely describing aspects of his nasty personality in general, with no suggestion that this was the path this drama developed. In this particular rust drama, JeanHeyd's pettiness caused him to go scorched earth over a perceived slight, once his talk was downgraded to a less prestigious slot. I have reiterated this over and over in several comments with you, and you keep twisting what I'm saying. JeanHeyd, and also you in another comment have claimed that there was a grand conspiracy to sabotage his work with no evidence whatsoever. The only fact in all this controversy is that he had a talk downgraded. Not even cancelled. > Just throwing accusations at people the way you're doing is actually a really shitty thing to do You should start practicing what you preach. How about providing evidence that JeanHeyds work was being sabotaged without merit? Or you just accuse others without evidence? Next time, stop changing what others are saying. Your conduct is not acceptable.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - mort96 3y ago
    I have not accused anyone of sabotaging his work.
    - wubalubadubdub 3y ago
      > The very source of this issue is that there were apparently people in the leadership who took serious issues with the direction of the compile time proposal, but were seemingly unwilling to have the discussion about technical merits. Here you are doing just that. You don't have evidence for this claim. All that happened was that his talk got downgraded. That's it.
      - mort96 3y ago
        The talk got downgraded due to one high-up person's serious issues with the talk, that person's concerns weren't made public, the identity of the person who had the concerns wasn't made public. Those are the facts. (Source: https://fasterthanli.me/articles/the-rustconf-keynote-fiasco-explained https://fasterthanli.me/articles/the-rustconf-keynote-fiasco...; ctrl+f concerns) I admit that I assumed that those concerns were technical (i.e "issues with the direction of the compile time proposal"). I don't have evidence for that, because the concerns weren't made public. Anyway, you're the one who's choosing to view their actions as sabotage of his work, I don't think I would characterize it like that. EDIT: I want to add, it's possible that this person who had great concerns was dtolnay and that the concerns were simply what he outlines in this post (essentially just that it wasn't ready to be featured in a keynote; source: https://gist.github.com/dtolnay/7f5da4bf057b7c6d0d00c6bed3060b96 https://gist.github.com/dtolnay/7f5da4bf057b7c6d0d00c6bed306... ctrl+f "I expressed forceful skepticism"). I hope that's not the case, since that's a really weak reason to retract a keynote invitation weeks after it was given, and seems like it could be easily solved with some disclaimers... but we can't know, since, again, nobody has publicly disclosed what the concerns were which caused the talk to be downgraded.