Why not Ruby?

[r]

On Jan 1, 5:34 pm, Kenneth Tilton <kentil... at gmail.com> wrote:
> Richard Riley wrote:
> > Jason Rumney <jasonrum... at gmail.com> writes:
>
> >> On Jan 1, 3:12 pm, r <rt8... at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >>> The man lives in a world driven by common sense
> >> "Common" sense suggests that his views are shared among the general
> >> populace. I don't see much evidence of that in the sometimes never-
> >> ending threads that frequently follow his postings. But it is good to
> >> start debates about making changes to the status quo, often the
> >> debates will result in worthwhile changes, even if those changes are
> >> not what he proposed. I just wish he would choose his venue a little
> >> more carefully sometimes.
>
> > I find that with Xah's posts people argue the man and not his
> > points.
>
> Precisely, and thus they are the trolls: few of them trim followups, and
> all of them try to sound funny or clever in their attacks. Xah has
> something to say about technology, like what he says or not. His
> attackers just see an open mike and want to hear the sound of their own
> voice, which I certainly understand.
>
> And before anyone goes for that old argument from self-reference, the
> madding crowd succeeded once in their harrassment of The Xah so
> remaining silent is no option.
>
> p,k

Good Point,
Starting a new thread is not off topic no matter what subject. I have
never witnessed a time where Xah jumped in the middle of a thread and
started a ruckus(i could be wrong), But i do see many interrupting
Xah's threads or any thread for that matter that they feel is
irrelevant to them. The topic of a thread is it's title. Here, the
title is "Why Not Ruby". I am the only person yet to offer argument
for or against Ruby here.