Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board

So let me get this straight...

Joel writes an article.

If you want to respond, you have to write something up on the web and email it to him.

He's completely removed the "Discuss" link from the bottom of the articles.

Um. You guys haven't noticed anything strange about all of this?
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Maybe he's trying to preserve the quality of discussion in this forum by preventing the influx of..... anyone.
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Or maybe he wants to control the manner in which is ideas can be publicly challenged.
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Or maybe he's... Wait, what's that behind me, it's the hand of the moderator come to delete this thread. HELP HELP...... arrgghaw3klj45awl4h6fyr ,z
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Damn you're smooth, Mark. :)

Bored Bystander
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Actually, I can't recall the last time Joel explicitly put a discussion link on *any* article, let alone his most recent ones.
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Joel has recently discovered one of life's unpleasant facts:  If you say something in public there are lot's of people just waiting to analyze, criticize and disagree with your every word.  That's the price you pay for living in a society that puts great value on freedom of speech.

And he is obviously too thin-skinned to deal with it.
Saturday, June 19, 2004

It's not like Joel's new articles are anything to brag about.  More common sense and dreaming than anything else.  I mean everyone asks where's Joel and why isn't he writing any articles.  So Joel feels pressured to write some articles.  I'm not saying they weren't an interesting read it's just old news in a different light.  Take a different approach Joel.

Saturday, June 19, 2004

Or he could flame away like certain angry coders (tm) and poison the whole environment... 

Joel's got a nice ecosystem here, say what you will about thin skinned-ness.

I have seen an extremely active board gutted by a netcopping administrator who invited everyone to leave - IE,

Joel is quite liberal, or at least keeps the "taking things personally" aspect separate from the community.

Bored Bystander
Saturday, June 19, 2004

Real people (everyone other than are interested in content, not if there's a space to comment after stories.

Clutch Cargo
Sunday, June 20, 2004

I don't really think Joel messed up with the 'put it on the web somewhere' thing, because he said to do that *rather than emailing him*. I think that's the key point. He didn't say to write up a standard rather than discuss, he said he couldn't possibly address the emails people were sending him. The two are manifestly different.

Mike Swieton
Sunday, June 20, 2004

> Joel has recently discovered one of life's unpleasant facts:

Another one I didn't write. Someone's spoofing me. :) I must be famous.

I did notice a long time ago that he stopped putting 'discuss' links on his articles.
Sunday, June 20, 2004

I assume he is trying to keep all discussion in this forum. Seems reasonable. It was getting kind of quiet while he was gone, but his last couple of articles have certainly stirred things up again.

Tom H
Sunday, June 20, 2004

Did I miss something?  The "discuss" links I remember were links to this forum.  I haven't noticed any lack of discussion about Joel's articles here recently. Perhaps people are able to find there way here without a direct link from the article.

Ken McKinney
Sunday, June 20, 2004

Some people may be able to find their way here, but as the OP says it's more indirect (and is largely the group that's always been here). Joel _did_ previously put a linked "Discuss" at the bottom of articles that lead into this "board" (though I always found it odd that it didn't go to a particular thread, so it would sort of confuse a first time visitor seeing a completely different set of discussions going on). Anyhoo there is a variety of reasons he might have dropped the discuss link, including the non-topical nature of this discussion software (and the inability of a single post to contain a long running thread).

Dennis Forbes
Sunday, June 20, 2004

>>"Someone's spoofing me. :) I must be famous."

Don't let it go to you're head.  You're not really famous.

Bill Clinton
Sunday, June 20, 2004

I'm more famous than all of you.

Colonel Sanders
Sunday, June 20, 2004

You are not!

James T. Kirk
Sunday, June 20, 2004

I'm _in_famous - two more than all of you!

G. W. Bush
Sunday, June 20, 2004

I just got back from seeing 'Super Size Me' and I'm more famous than all of you put together.

Ronald McDonald
Sunday, June 20, 2004

How about me?

Uncle Osama
Sunday, June 20, 2004

I'm almost as famous as the Beatles.

Sunday, June 20, 2004

This thread is just ripe for a mention of those guys who started WWII...

Sunday, June 20, 2004

>>This thread is just ripe for a mention of those guys who started WWII...

That was Al Qaeda wasn't it ?

Sunday, June 20, 2004

This thread is just ripe for a mention of those guys who prefer salad cream over mayonaise. Or was it the other way around? This is JoS, after all!

Sunday, June 20, 2004

I think this thread is a little overly ripe.
Monday, June 21, 2004

i didn't quite get into the argument, do you expect Joel to answer each and every postings on this board???
... Or would you prefer him to write a bot that posts answers to each posting on this board? (how do you refer to a bot, in terms of grammar???)

Michael Moser
Wednesday, June 23, 2004

Bot Grammar.... Hmmm... Well it is welcome to scramble the spelling any time it likes:

Beacsue aoccdrnig to rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm.

Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe.

Amzanig huh?

Friday, July 23, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home