Rejected Ruby book ideas by O'Reilly

Right. And George Bush is not a religious leader. It is all in how people
see things, not what they actually are. You are not paying attention to
appearances.

The appearance that he has a job? Perhaps, sir, some people use work
email for work-related things, and, perhaps, our friend Daniel works
with Ruby, wherein participating on this list with is work email is
not a problem, and is in fact an asset to his job. Perhaps. Secondly,
what he does and does not do with his work email account is his
business, and not yours. Mr. Berger here is not the president of the
United States, and works for a private company. It is up to them to
tell him if he is doing something that is against their policy, not
yours.

> And there was no criticism in my question.

No one said or implied that there was. I called it a personal grievance --
that seems accurate.

That, sir, is an assumption, and we know what that can (and usually
does) mean. It's simply ridiculous to assume that he's mad about a
book proposal that was rejected. He may, in fact, be planning
something else and this information is simply helpful to its
completion. Perhaps he's writing a book and wants to gauge whether it
would be accepted or not. Perhaps he's working on a service that will
'publish' via the web any books he finds interesting. Perhaps he's
just curious of the number of rejected or accepted-but-cancelled
proposals. Either way, that is up to him, and not for you to
criticize.

Go back to criticizing George Bush, you're doing a much better job at that.

Like my dad's mother used to say, "if you don't have anything nice to
say, don't say anything at all." And in this case, maybe it's
"constructive" and not "nice".

> Please, don't try to guess why I'm asking - it won't work.

Too late for that. You are far too transparent.

Things are decidedly not as transparent as they seem. To me, you are
transparently a dick. But, I don't know you, and that would be jumping
to conclusions, assuming, and misinterpreting your (presumably) good
intentions.

Like I said, thinks are decidedly not as they seem.

And you are posting on matters having nothing remotely to do with your
employment, on company time. Your argument that there is no conflict of
interest is a double-edged sword -- it means you shouldn't be spending
company time on it.

As I said above, perhaps he works with Ruby and he uses the support of
the community in his work? That is perfectly legit. I do it, and I'd
imagine a number of people do it. And even if this is not the case
(who knows?), it isn't my concern, nor is it yours, even as a QWest
client. Your concern is whether you get your services as you pay for
them. If you don't, then you complain to the person who can do
something about it.

Sorry for this being an off-topic response. I'll bring it a bit more
on topic by simply saying that I have not made a proposal yet, but I
am thinking about it. If I do, I will let you know how it works out.

Cheers, and peace.

M.T.

···

On 9/21/06, Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:

Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> writes:

Berger, Daniel wrote:

/ ...

Haven't you been reading the technical press lately? You are
doing your employer a disservice by seeming to use your QWest
soapbox (your status as a QWest employee) to criticize a book
publisher.

<rant snipped>

What in the world are you talking about? Qwest is a telecom. We do not
publish books. There is no conflict of interest here.

Right. And George Bush is not a religious leader. It is all in how people
see things, not what they actually are. You are not paying attention to
appearances.

And there was no criticism in my question.

No one said or implied that there was. I called it a personal grievance --
that seems accurate.

Wow, Paul. Perhaps you could be bothered to read the lines prefixed
with '>>> ' above. Particularly the last two lines. Especially the
9th word of the third line.

Please, don't try to guess why I'm asking - it won't work.

Too late for that. You are far too transparent.

And you are posting on matters having nothing remotely to do with your
employment, on company time. Your argument that there is no conflict of
interest is a double-edged sword -- it means you shouldn't be spending
company time on it.

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

It's pretty safe to say I have no dog in this race...or whatever it
is. It does seem to me that if somebody has a seekrit project, they
ought to keep it that way by doing their own research. (Why not just
ask O'Reilly? You've already broadcast what you're doing anyway.)

But sheesh with the conspiracy stuff already. The most likely thing
is that Daniel will get a small number of responses. After careful
analysis he'll realize that whatever he thought he was observing was
just a coincidence and everybody can be friends again.

That is unless acting like he's the detective and ruby-talk is his
confidential informant causes this thread to be posted to /. as "All
Ruby Fans Claim ORA Kicked Their Dog". Heaven help us then. Please
don't anyone get a quote from Torvalds on this.

Steve

Robert Klemme wrote:

···

On 21.09.2006 18:07, Berger, Daniel wrote:

Please, don't try to guess why I'm asking - it won't work.

You make it really sound like a spy plot. Can you at least promise to solve the mystery at some future point in time (say less than a year ahead)? Otherwise I might die from curiosity... :-))

LOL, well, we all die of something...

Hal

Simen Edvardsen wrote:
>
> How about "Writing a Book for O'Reilly (And Have It Rejected!) in a
> Nutshell"?
>
> Also, someone should write a for beginners book about writing books
> for beginners. That would be funny just for the meta-ness of it.
>

I wrote a couple of O'Reilly books. I'm not going to write a book about
writing books, but I'd be glad to answer some questions (or introduce
prospective authors to my editors there).

I'm not planning to write a book, but perhaps that's what the original
poster was. I just thought the idea was amusing.

···

On 9/23/06, William Grosso <wgrosso@wgrosso.com> wrote:

Bill

--
- Simen

TANSTAOA

This will be an interesting hallway conversation at RubyConf :slight_smile:

···

On 9/21/06, Berger, Daniel <Daniel.Berger@qwest.com> wrote:

> From: Robert Klemme [mailto:shortcutter@googlemail.com]
> You make it really sound like a spy plot. Can you at least
> promise to
> solve the mystery at some future point in time (say less than a year
> ahead)? Otherwise I might die from curiosity... :-))

Certainly....offline. :slight_smile:

"This communication is the property of Qwest and may
contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this
communication is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply
e-mail and destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments."

Am I permitted to read this message? What gives me an
obligation to notify anyone about anything by email if
anything whatsoever happens? How can demands be made about
what use of this communication is authorized when this
message has been posted publicly on the Internet?

···

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

Never get involved in a book war in Asia.

···

On 9/21/06, pat eyler <pat.eyler@gmail.com> wrote:

Is it just me or does this seem like a discussion between the
Man in Black and Vizzini?

"I do not think him is what you think him is." :wink:

James Edward Gray II

···

On Sep 21, 2006, at 12:13 PM, pat eyler wrote:

On 9/21/06, Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:

Berger, Daniel wrote:

> Please, don't try to guess why I'm asking - it won't work.

Too late for that. You are far too transparent.

Is it just me or does this seem like a discussion between the
Man in Black and Vizzini?

I stopped working a long time ago. Took too much time away from ruby-talk.

···

On 9/21/06, Leslie Viljoen <leslieviljoen@gmail.com> wrote:

On 9/21/06, Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:
> Berger, Daniel wrote:
>
> / ...
>
> >> Haven't you been reading the technical press lately? You are
> >> doing your employer a disservice by seeming to use your QWest
> >> soapbox (your status as a QWest employee) to criticize a book
> >> publisher.
> >
> > <rant snipped>
> >
> > What in the world are you talking about? Qwest is a telecom. We do not
> > publish books. There is no conflict of interest here.
>
> Right. And George Bush is not a religious leader. It is all in how people
> see things, not what they actually are. You are not paying attention to
> appearances.
>
> > And there was no criticism in my question.
>
> No one said or implied that there was. I called it a personal grievance --
> that seems accurate.
>
> > Please, don't try to guess why I'm asking - it won't work.
>
> Too late for that. You are far too transparent.
>
> And you are posting on matters having nothing remotely to do with your
> employment, on company time. Your argument that there is no conflict of
> interest is a double-edged sword -- it means you shouldn't be spending
> company time on it.

But how do you know the policies of anyone's company? Do you also work
for Qwest?
You are surely in the minority if you never post to mailing lists in
your work time!

Oh, are we arguing about silly things again?
:slight_smile:

Oh, the sot has spoken! What happens to the OP is not truly your
concern. *I* will killfile him. And remember this, *never forget
this*: when I found you, you were so slobbering drunk, you couldn't
code in *Java*!

---John

···

On 9/21/06, pat eyler <pat.eyler@gmail.com> wrote:

On 9/21/06, Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:
> Berger, Daniel wrote:
>
> > Please, don't try to guess why I'm asking - it won't work.
>
> Too late for that. You are far too transparent.
>

Is it just me or does this seem like a discussion between the
Man in Black and Vizzini?

Leslie Viljoen wrote:

/ ...

But how do you know the policies of anyone's company? Do you also work
for Qwest?

Yes, as a matter fact, I do. I pay them for my phone service. That comes out
of my pocket. So the answer is yes.

You are surely in the minority if you never post to mailing lists in
your work time!

I am in the minority, and if I were not, I would certainly try to avoid
having a corporate disclaimer at the bottom of my posts.

Oh, are we arguing about silly things again?
:slight_smile:

Yep. Pretty silly. :slight_smile:

···

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

Matt Todd wrote:

Right. And George Bush is not a religious leader. It is all in how people
see things, not what they actually are. You are not paying attention to
appearances.

The appearance that he has a job? Perhaps, sir, some people use work
email for work-related things, and, perhaps, our friend Daniel works
with Ruby, wherein participating on this list with is work email is
not a problem, and is in fact an asset to his job. Perhaps. Secondly,
what he does and does not do with his work email account is his
business, and not yours.

Wrong. Under present circumstances my advice is timely and apt.

Mr. Berger here is not the president of the
United States, and works for a private company. It is up to them to
tell him if he is doing something that is against their policy, not
yours.

Better me than them.

/ ...

Too late for that. You are far too transparent.

Things are decidedly not as transparent as they seem. To me, you are
transparently a dick.

Ahh, testosterone speaks, and, as usual, strident and alone.

···

On 9/21/06, Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:

--
Paul Lutus
http://www.arachnoid.com

pat eyler wrote:

···

On 9/21/06, Paul Lutus <nospam@nosite.zzz> wrote:

Berger, Daniel wrote:

> Please, don't try to guess why I'm asking - it won't work.

Too late for that. You are far too transparent.

Is it just me or does this seem like a discussion between the
Man in Black and Vizzini?

I am not left-brained either!

Hal

Dark Ambient wrote:

Berger, This is your boos.
You're fired for prattling on on company time.
I'll expect you out of the office by tomorrow !!!

--
Posted via http://www.ruby-forum.com/\.

Sounds harsh , till I read it came from boos.

Berger, this is your booze talking. What's this we hear
about you quitting Qwest to work for O'Reilly? That's a
blow to our fiber optic book publishing department.

Hal

Hal Fulton wrote:

Robert Klemme wrote:

Please, don't try to guess why I'm asking - it won't work.

You make it really sound like a spy plot. Can you at least promise to solve the mystery at some future point in time (say less than a year ahead)? Otherwise I might die from curiosity... :-))

LOL, well, we all die of something...

Actually I won't. And dying from curiosity is a slow and long death - nothing you pick if you have the choice. :slight_smile:

  robert

···

On 21.09.2006 18:07, Berger, Daniel wrote:

Gene Venable wrote:

"This communication is the property of Qwest and may
contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this
communication is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply
e-mail and destroy all copies of the communication and any attachments."

Am I permitted to read this message? What gives me an
obligation to notify anyone about anything by email if
anything whatsoever happens? How can demands be made about
what use of this communication is authorized when this
message has been posted publicly on the Internet?

That's a good question. Does Google have to ask Qwest for permission to spider this post? =)

···

--
  Ola Bini (http://ola-bini.blogspot.com)
  JvYAML, RbYAML, JRuby and Jatha contributor
  System Developer, Karolinska Institutet (http://www.ki.se)
  OLogix Consulting (http://www.ologix.com)

  "Yields falsehood when quined" yields falsehood when quined.

From: Gene Venable [mailto:geneven@rocketmail.com]
Sent: Thursday, September 21, 2006 11:19 AM
To: ruby-talk ML
Subject: Re: [OT] Rejected Ruby book ideas by O'Reilly

"This communication is the property of Qwest and may
contain confidential or
privileged information. Unauthorized use of this
communication is strictly
prohibited and may be unlawful. If you have received this
communication
in error, please immediately notify the sender by reply
e-mail and destroy
all copies of the communication and any attachments."

Am I permitted to read this message?

No. You must now be liquidated. Fool! :stuck_out_tongue:

What gives me an
obligation to notify anyone about anything by email if
anything whatsoever happens? How can demands be made about
what use of this communication is authorized when this
message has been posted publicly on the Internet?

IANAL, but I highly doubt that the demands apply outside of Qwest, and
it's very likely for defensive purposes only. I wish they wouldn't
attach this disclaimer to email sent outside of our domain, but it's out
of my control. BTW, I'm not the only one suffering from this on the
list.

I'm curious to hear comments from others on the subject.

Regards,

Dan

···

-----Original Message-----

I have spent the last several years building up an immunity to trolling powder.

···

On 9/21/06, Benjamin Reed <rangerrick@gmail.com> wrote:

On 9/21/06, pat eyler <pat.eyler@gmail.com> wrote:

> Is it just me or does this seem like a discussion between the
> Man in Black and Vizzini?

Never get involved in a book war in Asia.

Do you hear that sound, Your Geekness? Those are the shrieking trolls.
They always grow louder as they're about to feed on a mailing list.