|prev : next : index||SPEW|
A final (I hope!) comment on the past two days' discussion.
I think if I were anonymous I would have gone ahead and provided a link to the etext I was discussing, although maybe not. The fundamental issue is that it involves content that I don't feel appropriate to discuss in "public". It's not that I'm particularly squeamish or embarassed about the events or the role that I played in them. Rather, I have two concerns. First, due to the content therein, people might question my motivation for providing the link, thinking that it was really some sort of indirect bragging--I'm not sure, but it's not something I would normally discuss. Secondly, it involves some content that I would be really embarassed about if it became a meme in certain social circles--circles that are online and thus have a high likelihood of reading the pages.
Indeed, I want people from those communities to be able to read my pages and know that it is me, so even if I made myself more anonymous to the net at large but not them, the problem would still remain.
I decided this following a 10-15 minute compile-error debugging session by a net acquaintance, which seemed to be bizarre and flaky but turned out to be a mismatched 'static' in the definition vs. declaration. Nearly the first thought I had on hearing the problem was "check that the declaration and the definition are the same", but I suppressed saying it because I assumed it had already been tested. The debuggist might well have been embarrassed that he hadn't checked it, but if he hadn't thought of it... well, only one of us assumed.