The guy you are responding to was completely calm and reasonable. Didn't say anything attacking or otherwise. I'm not sure why you are seemingly trying to cast him (and the Beam) in such a bad light, with seemingly no reason to back it up.
Both of you are afflicted by that logical fallacy of failing to understand that you not encountering a phenomenon does not mean it does not happen or is rare, it just means you didn't encounter it.
If you try telling people that did encounter that phenomenon that in practice they wouldn't/didn't then you shouldn't be surprised if they question why they started talking to you in the first place.
> Do you genuinely fail to see how your behaviour proves my point?
I genuinely see only one thing: I asked you to elaborate but you are convinced that I am pretending to discuss while I, again genuinely, actually did want to discuss.
You asserting something about me, a person whose mind you cannot read is confusing and quite aggressive, in a very uncalled-for manner too. But as I said already -- have it your way, I disengaged because it became apparent you are not interested in discussing. OK. It's your right.
What's not OK is you claiming that I am not interested in discussing however, and I maintain that I was interested in discussing.
> You cannot just hound people with demands because you don’t like what they are saying.
1. I am not "hounding" you for anything, I asked a question.
2. You are again assuming my motivation and I assert that you have gotten it wrong. You that I "disliked what you said" is a borderline personal attack and an off-topic. I was confused why you claimed what you did and wanted you to elaborate, to find out what made you think like that and if I can change your mind with a few anecdotes and some facts (that are hard to look up because they require scanning a forum; yet they are there and are visible to everyone who engages with the platform).
BTW, if you really have known anything at all about the Elixir ecosystem you would know that its creator, to this day, engages with users on ElixirForum and asks for their feedback on what they find lacking. That sort of engagement and genuine discussion spirit that you claim I (as a part of the Elixir community) don't have.
That alone invalidates your point entirely.
I am disengaging second and final time, let future readers decide for themselves.
Calling someone “biased” and “acting in bad faith” is a personal attack and violates this site’s rules. People get rate limited for far less on this site.
I'd argue taking things out of context and deliberately painting the commenter in a bad light is not a nice forum discourse.
I said, very plainly and visibly, that my parent commenter's unwillingness to back up negative claims COMES ACROSS as biased and ARGUING (NOT "acting") in bad faith.
Come on now, this stuff is not hard, the message is literally up there. Not sure why you had to editorialize it and thus misconstrue it?
As I plainly explained, right at the top, it is not theoretical. There is no point engaging people with evidence if they are so dismissive of basic facts.
But then that is also true here. Your claims about him not saying what he plainly did are just bizarre.
