[dllthomas]

There is no hypocrisy.

I am engaging in good faith, as I have always done. I have done so under this same name, here, on r/haskell, on haskell-cafe and haskell-beginners, on #haskell, and in person.

I said that if you are engaged in bad faith, and if you will persist in doing so, you need to GTFO. I stand by that statement.

That you perceive yourself to be acting in good faith and me to be acting otherwise does not make it hypocrisy.

If you are intending to engage in good faith, please observe that - at the very least - we seem to be having a bad time successfully communicating in this format. Perhaps we can try some other medium? If you're in the bay area, I'll buy you a beer (or social equivalent).

[MustardTiger]

>I am engaging in good faith

That is very hard to believe consider the amount of dishonest rhetoric on display.

>I said that if you are engaged in bad faith, and if you will persist in doing so, you need to GTFO

You did not. You said if I continue I need to GTFO. I am not engaging in bad faith, I am being honest and clear, and you are respond with ridiculous strawman attacks.

>If you're in the bay area, I'll buy you a beer (or social equivalent).

I'm in a very different bay area than the one I assume you refer to. I do not see any reason why text is a problem. You simply need to read the words I write and respond to that, rather than read then, make up an imaginary version of me, give that imaginary version of me a bunch of other opinions you don't like, and then respond to those.

[dllthomas]

> You said if I continue I need to GTFO.

I said,

> I'm growing convinced that you're not engaging in good faith anywhere in this thread. And if this is going to be regular practice, please GTFO of the Haskell community.

As I wrote it, the (now italicized) "this" was definitely meant to refer to the just mentioned "not engaging in good faith", not to your behavior whatever it may be. This was less clear than I'd meant it to be, although I still think my intended interpretation is favored.

[dllthomas]

> That is very hard to believe consider the amount of dishonest rhetoric on display.

If we wish to litigate this, please point out a single instance of dishonest rhetoric from me. Be very specific about how it is dishonest. Bear in mind that there may have been genuine misunderstanding by either of us, and we were probably neither as clear as we thought ourselves to be.

[dllthomas]

I think text - at least in this format - is unlikely to work because it has manifestly not been working. I do read (and reread) what you write and I have not been able to figure out how I am misunderstanding anything. So, if this is ever going to be useful, something needs to change.