4 ms·

I shudder to think how much chatter this is going to generate. Zed bashing on _why... worlds collide. The only thing that would be better is if he somehow bro

by fogus 17y ago

I shudder to think how much chatter this is going to generate. Zed bashing on _why... worlds collide. The only thing that would be better is if he somehow brought up Erlang in the argument.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago
Learn You Some Buddha For Great Good, Biatch, by Zed Shaw.
- shabda 17y ago
  Yes, we should be discounting everything Zed Shaw says, instead of arguing things on merit. I for one think Zed is right this time.
  - deleted 17y ago
    [deleted]
joe_the_user 17y ago
Except that Zed isn't "bashing", he's making an intelligent, measured well thought-out argument - for once. Perhaps the only thing that will happen is the brains of those expecting insanity will explode...
- unalone 17y ago
  He's bashing. Calls _why Jonathan instead of giving him the courtesy of an alias, presumes to know _why's motives, calls him names repeatedly.
  - steveklabnik 17y ago
    I read that as showing how he actually cared about _why? as a person, rather than as his persona. He doesn't really care about _why?'s code, he cares that everything is okay with him.
    - unalone 17y ago
      But _why's name isn't Jonathan, Zed didn't know him in person, and in the one public conversation they had _why and Zed weren't on the same side of the argument. We have no proof that _why is in any trouble at all, and this isn't the first time he's nuked things he created. There's nothing much about the person to be worried about, and the persona isn't real. Zed just likes ranting. (BTW, if you're worried about a person and how they're doing, you don't call them names.)
      - steveklabnik 17y ago
        I don't know what _why?'s name is, I have no idea if Zed knew him, or not. Just saying that that's how I read it initially. Also, it might be poor form to call someone names, but just because you disagree with one of someone's actions, doesn't mean you don't like them. You can say someone did a bad thing without thinking that they're a bad person.
  - MaysonL 17y ago
    Given that "Why the Lucky Stiff" is a persona - a mask, that this guy has worn for a while, and that seemingly, he no longer wishes to wear, what are we supposed to call him? Jonathon, if that's his "official" name, seems as good as anything else, since he seems to have resigned from the "Why" role.
    - unalone 17y ago
      It's not his name. Zed posted a link on Twitter to somebody named Jonathan and insisted it was _why. It wasn't. We're talking about why the lucky stiff. We don't know anything about the man that wore the mask. He was very good at keeping his personal life a mystery. So calling him why the lucky stiff makes sense, at least until/if we learn more about what's going on.
- anigbrowl 17y ago
  To me, that’s fucked up, and something only an obnoxious Nihilist would do. A Nihilist who was just jerking people around and playing a long con on everyone. If you think this is measured I would hate to see your definition of intemperate.

by fogus 17y ago

I shudder to think how much chatter this is going to generate. Zed bashing on _why... worlds collide. The only thing that would be better is if he somehow brought up Erlang in the argument.

RyanMcGreal 17y ago

Learn You Some Buddha For Great Good, Biatch, by Zed Shaw.

shabda 17y ago
Yes, we should be discounting everything Zed Shaw says, instead of arguing things on merit. I for one think Zed is right this time.
- deleted 17y ago
  [deleted]

joe_the_user 17y ago

Except that Zed isn't "bashing", he's making an intelligent, measured well thought-out argument - for once. Perhaps the only thing that will happen is the brains of those expecting insanity will explode...

unalone 17y ago
He's bashing. Calls _why Jonathan instead of giving him the courtesy of an alias, presumes to know _why's motives, calls him names repeatedly.
- steveklabnik 17y ago
  I read that as showing how he actually cared about _why? as a person, rather than as his persona. He doesn't really care about _why?'s code, he cares that everything is okay with him.
  - unalone 17y ago
    But _why's name isn't Jonathan, Zed didn't know him in person, and in the one public conversation they had _why and Zed weren't on the same side of the argument. We have no proof that _why is in any trouble at all, and this isn't the first time he's nuked things he created. There's nothing much about the person to be worried about, and the persona isn't real. Zed just likes ranting. (BTW, if you're worried about a person and how they're doing, you don't call them names.)
    - steveklabnik 17y ago
      I don't know what _why?'s name is, I have no idea if Zed knew him, or not. Just saying that that's how I read it initially. Also, it might be poor form to call someone names, but just because you disagree with one of someone's actions, doesn't mean you don't like them. You can say someone did a bad thing without thinking that they're a bad person.
- MaysonL 17y ago
  Given that "Why the Lucky Stiff" is a persona - a mask, that this guy has worn for a while, and that seemingly, he no longer wishes to wear, what are we supposed to call him? Jonathon, if that's his "official" name, seems as good as anything else, since he seems to have resigned from the "Why" role.
  - unalone 17y ago
    It's not his name. Zed posted a link on Twitter to somebody named Jonathan and insisted it was _why. It wasn't. We're talking about why the lucky stiff. We don't know anything about the man that wore the mask. He was very good at keeping his personal life a mystery. So calling him why the lucky stiff makes sense, at least until/if we learn more about what's going on.
anigbrowl 17y ago
To me, that’s fucked up, and something only an obnoxious Nihilist would do. A Nihilist who was just jerking people around and playing a long con on everyone. If you think this is measured I would hate to see your definition of intemperate.