I propose this page to be a DeletionCandidate. It contains little or no useful technical information, and scarcely adds value to this wiki. * That's exactly NotNiceEnough of you. The article contains a great example (dialog below) of a '''ranter''' who wants to fix problems, with a nice person responding back (bugs are okay, they are nice). If you can find value in the mess, please, feel free to extract it and delete the remainder. * The eye is in the beholder. Those who are insecure may even be offended by this article, the links it points to, and the clear example which uses dialog to demonstrate a ranter who wishes to fix problems versus a nice person who lets it slide by. Yes, your examples clearly show that you think that being nice means leaving things alone, not complaining, not criticising, and not trying to make things better. Your examples clearly show that you think only people who are not nice ever get things done. Well, you're wrong. ---- http://edutainmenteng.wordpress.com/2007/12/14/why-nice-guys-are-often-such-losers/ * Based on the incorrect assumption that being nice is driven by being insecure. Maybe the author has only met nice people who are nice because they're insecure, but maybe that tells us more about the author than it does about the people they've met. Some people are nice because they're nice, it's possible to be nice without being a wuss, a wimp, or a loser. ** ''First, you need to buy a sense of humor somewhere. Second: you aren't being very nice yourself by not accepting the article as a comic, which it is clearly marked as so with comics in its web page. You're being very insecure by not simply laughing at the article and taking some useful points out of it. This is a sign of AnalRetentive.'' * First, you need to decide whether this article is supporting your claim that being nice is a bad thing, or whether it's humor. You seem confused about what point you're trying to make, and how to make it. On the one hand you claim being nice isn't valuable, and you quote a comic to make your point, then on the other hand you claim it's a joke. Make up your mind. * Second, some comics just aren't funny. * Third, since it's simply not funny I considered the article carefully to see if there was anything I could learn from it. There wasn't. GetOverIt, move on, you're not making your points. This is a sign of being ChronicallyRight. * Finally, this page contributes nothing useful to this wiki. Once, admittedly now over ten years ago, this wiki was an absolute goldmine of technical information, assistance, and ideas. Now it has pages like this one with you self-aggrandising all over it. If you contributed useful and interesting technical material I could put up with a lot of other crap from you, but you don't seem to add anything useful, even though there are occasional hints that you are actually really, really clever. Try this. Try spending a week discussing only technical issues. Maybe you can play a part in making this wiki valuable again. * PostScript: I'm not offended by people who criticise. I'm offended by people who have ability, and waste it. I'd love to see you show that you're not one of them. ---- A lot of people are offended by anyone who has a critical nature, anyone who writes articles (of any sort), anyone who criticizes. These critical thinkers are just are NotNiceEnough for society. Oh poo poo. We made someone feel bad. The irony is that criticizing a person for being NotNiceEnough is not really nice itself - because criticizing the criticizer is criticism too. CriticismIsRecursive? People who are NotNiceEnough are often the ones who find bugs, find flaws, fix problems, etc. * And you have some evidence for this? Perhaps those who are NotNiceEnough simply trumpet their own worth and get noticed more, whereas those who are nice are equally competent, perhaps even more competent, and just don't track the attention. Maybe they actually get more kudos and respect, and those who are NotNiceEnough actually accomplish less, make more noise, and get less respect. You can't tell. An empty barrel makes the most noise. ---- '''Ranter''': ''I'm not happy with this software! It sucks. Let's fix the bugs, right now.'' '''Nice Person''': ''Nah, be nice - just be easy going, relax. Stop being so anxious. The software works fine, it just has a few nice buggy features.'' '''Ranter''': ''I'm not happy with SQL - it is bastardized! It sucks. Let's fix and improve it, or else!'' '''Nice Person''': ''Nah, SQL is nice - just like me. Just be easy going, and ''relax''. Stop being so anxious. Be nice. SQL works fine.'' '''Ranter''': ''StandardPascal's limitations and syntax blows, it is too verbose and restrictive! It sucks. Let's fix and improve it.'' '''Nice Person''': ''Nah, StandardPascal is great and will live on forever. It is perfect.'' '''Ranter''': ''Pure Functionalism sucks - nothing is purely functional.'' '''Nice Person''': ''Nah, pure functionalism is great. It is perfect. Don't bother with Monads or Imperative languages: they have bad side effects. Those are not nice. We must remain nice.'' ''This seems to be about accepting potential imperfections more than communication. The nice person could ask, "How would it benefit this business to use X instead of SQL?" or the like and still be "nice".'' ---- For example why do some seem to write rudely, or why are some often accused of ranting? ''Oh, all right; I think I will. It's because they are young, brash, arrogant, and lacks the humility and wisdom that only (sometimes) comes with age.'' [He should just shut down all his critical spewing and go to sleep. It's all worthless. --DevilsAdvocate] ''Define: humble: low or inferior in station or quality'' Everyone should become low and inferior! That is something to aspire to, isn't it? Low quality, crappiness, inferior.. something ''really'' to aim and strive for. Aim low! Do not aim high. ''Do not aim for perfection.'' Just be nice, and let things slide. Let the poo flow in the stream. Buy high, sell low. http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/EWD/ewd10xx/EWD1055A.PDF Aims for a young scientist... wow. ''"Humble" has several definitions. In encouraging people to show more humility we are not asking them to become low in station - that would be ridiculous. Taking "humility" to imply that you are striving for low standards is ludicrous. Assuming there is meaning in the exhortation, another meaning of "humble" must be relevant. Here is a definition from the Concise Oxford Dictionary:'' : "Having, or showing, a low estimate of one's own importance." ''That sounds more likely. The exhortation is that everyone should show due recognition that others may genuinely be better. That is what it means to have a degree of humility. Accept that others may know more, and be smarter, and strive to convince them. In doing so you gain credence and reputation. To do otherwise, to criticize others and simply state things as if they are self-evident truths for lesser mortals to accept without question is to start by alienating them, and then either you're wrong, thus losing status, or you're right, fostering resentment. I strongly recommend you read HowToWinFriendsAndInfluencePeople. Although now very dated, if you read it to find information, and not simply to mock, there is much there about learning how to get along with people, and how to convey information in a way that makes them want to accept things that are right.'' ''The quoted paper from EWD implicitly exhorts people to have a degree of humility. It says:'' : Never tackle a problem ... that ... will be tackled by others who are ... at least as competent ... as you are. ''This shows a healthy regard for the abilities of others.'' This sounds like we are discussing ''not being arrogant''. Who are the arrogant people who assume I am arrogant - which is an arrogant act itself, hence RecursiveArrogance. For example, how can you, as an arrogant person, say that I am arrogant - when I am catching you in the act of arrogance (AnonomousDonor, DaveVoorhis, and all the other wimps who call ''me'' arrogant - yet I never call them arrogant, even though I've found several instances on this wiki which prove they are arrogant (I remain humble and do not say a thing, as I don't prefer to insult as much as I prefer to ''engage'' in ''technical conversations'' (this is not one of them, so please shut your trap hole)). * {Eep! Have I been arrogant? Where?} -- DaveVoorhis * On the WhyHatePerl page. GetOverIt. I enjoyed it. AnonymousDonor is simply over sensitive. * {Oh, that. That's one of the first things I ever posted on this Wiki. As I recall, I'd posted it on another forum as a bit of humour, and a fellow participant (and Perl fan) who also used to be active here suggested I post it on WhyHatePerl. Is it arrogant? I thought it was obviously silly.} -- DV : Don't strive for recognition (in whatever form): recognition should not be a goal, but a symptom that your work has been worthwhile. ''This requires that you actually do something useful, for which you will be recognised.'' No - you will not ''be recognized'' by default. But you may, as a side effect. ''You appear to be confusing "necessary" and "sufficient". I never said it was sufficient, I only said it was necessary.'' ---- For example why does FabianPascal write rudely, or why is he often accused of ranting? ''Are we seeing a pattern here?'' ---- For example why does LinusTorvalds write rudely, or why is he often accused of ranting? ''Are we seeing a pattern here?'' ---- For example why does Anyone write rudely, or why is she often accused of ranting? ''Are we seeing a pattern here?'' ---- The fact is - lots of people are NotNiceEnough, lots of people rant, lots of people appear to be rude. Maybe they are falsely being categorized and labeled. Maybe the person criticizing the criticism is also NotNiceEnough, hence hypocrisy or CriticismIsRecursive. Everyone on this wiki, is rude - to some extent - especially the italics people who come in and ruin a perfectly good non italic wiki page. But ItalicsAreHilarious. UgLyPeople aren't nice either. Let's get rid of them. Oh wait, getting rid of them wouldn't be nice. CriticismIsRecursive. ---- A lot of people are offended by certain people's critical nature.. the way certain people write articles, the way certain people rant and criticize. Word of warning: all intelligent people in history were ranters, complainers, critically minded people, etc. http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=There-Are-Ranters-or-There-Are-Ranters I have strong bull shit detectors and I outright admit to having an ego and I outright admit to being extremely critical (yet I selflessly release thousands of source code snippets to the public, and participate in open source projects, so don't get the wrong idea that I am somehow selfishly egotistical). A lot of easy going programmers go with the flow, listening to whatever they hear - agreeing with mainstream. I am not like that. So someone may appear mean, rude, critical at times. All intelligent people are like this. People that are too easy going are not as intelligent. People that don't critically analyze and nitpick are simply not intelligent - they are just followers. They aren't leaders. There are several quotes that prove this. ---- ''NotNiceEnough because you're a bastard.. you're critical, and I'm even correct at times. So what? It's better than being '''nice'''.'' * {''Is'' it better than being nice? Why? I've tried both. I've been a critical bastard, and I've been nice. These days, I try to be nice. Sometimes I slip and become a critical bastard, but without exception it turns out that being "nice" results in considerably more pleasantness for all concerned, including (if not especially) me. It also turns out that it's harder to be nice than be a critical bastard, but it's worth the effort. It's also possible to simultaneously be nice and be critical, which is a good thing lest idiocy hold sway. This is the hardest thing of all, but the rewards -- not surprisingly -- are greatest.} ** [You offering lessons? I'm up for one.] * If we can make a compromise and some how be nice (and humorous too) while also being critical - then this is good. I try, but sometimes people mistake my humor as pure rudeness. For example, when I say a phrase like BrainDamage... TopMind gets all upset and offended. Sheesh. You were a bastard, Dave, when you criticized Top in places like FraudulentMindset, ImproveDatabasesOrElse, etc. But you were nice too - so you are right, combining and making compromises is ''better'' than being ''purely'' rude. Especially, since I am against purest pure ''purism''. ** [Most people don't recognize your attempts at humor. Keep in mind that voice, posture, and the basic clues of sarcasm and humor rarely survive the text-only interface. Certain forms of 'dry' humor and deadpan hold up pretty well (since dry humor is usually delivered entirely without inflection), but they rely very heavily on context. Until such a time as you can manage it habitually (UnconsciousCompetence) you should explicitly and intentionally double-check all attempts at humor and either mark them or reword them until they are at the right degree of obvious and subtle for the target audience.] ** Feeding Top hemlock was serious? ** [That one would qualify as HaHaOnlySerious. I wouldn't actually use hemlock.] ** I suggest Extensible Humor Markup Language to solve the problem. HaHaOnlySerious. All jokes have some truth. ** [A rabbi, a priest, and an alien of Helatrobus walked into a bar...] ** ''If one is rude often, then "negative" humor is often not seen as humor, but rather an extension of the prior rudeness. Spices tend to work best if you don't over-use them and don't mix them with too many other spices. Proportion, context, and timing are part of the art of humor. -t'' ---- Quotes to back up why ''anyone'' intelligent rants and criticizes. * http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Sometimes-We-Discover-Unpleasant-Truths * http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=There-Are-Ranters-or-There-Are-Ranters Consider quote: ''"...a philosopher who did not hurt anybody's feelings was not doing his job." --Plato (source: Wikipedia)'' Consider quote: ''"..one of the men who brings legal charges against Socrates, Anytus, warns him about the trouble he may get into if he does not stop criticizing important people." --Wikipedia'' Consider quote: ''"The ancient Greeks first identified the essence of critical consciousness when philosophers encouraged their students to develop an "impulse and willingness to stand back from humanity and nature... (and) to make them objects of thought and criticism, and to search for their meaning and significance." --Wikipedia'' Consider quote: ''"Critical nature: OCP says philosophy is critical thinking. PTB says that philosophy examines the beliefs we take for granted." --Wikipedia'' Consider quote: ''"I do realize that others disagree. And I'm not your Mom." ..."I won't give you the cold shoulder because you have "sullied" yourself."... "I won't shed a tear over it."... "Because I'm a bastard, and proud of it!" --LinusTorvalds'' ---- It's not a question of writing nicely or rudely, it's a question of being worth listening to. Linus and Pascal have both proven that they are worth listening to, and if they won't tolerate fools, then at least they've earned the right. You've created a lot of straw men here, and knocked them over, but you haven't made your case. You have said nothing that makes me believe you're worth listening to, and many things that appear to be a waste of time. You've compared yourself with Socrates, Plato, FabianPascal and LinusTorvalds, and it seems to me that the comparison is not especially in your favor. So by all means continue to rant, but don't expect people to be bothered to read it. If you don't care enough to attract a reader, I'm not going to care enough to wade through your self-congratulatory raving. Perhaps history will show that you were right, but if no one listens, no one will know. ''What is funny, though, is that I can claim the same about you. Why should anyone listen to your babbling about my babbling? You are ranting about my ranting. You are here, replying to my article, wasting your time - and you continue to do so - yet above you claim that I am not worth your time. Yet you are here wasting your time with me, over and over again. It seems, that I am worth your time. PeopleArgueToFindOut and etc.'' ''I am not comparing myself to Linus as if I am as great as Linus, Fabian, etc. I am just using them as popular examples of critical folks who '''also''' rant. I have critical articles which show (rant or not) that I am very unlike Linus and Fabian. Linus does not respect Dijkstra, for example. I do. Fabian is not a programmer, and I am. By you changing the subject and making it seem as though I am claiming to be as high as Linus, you are '''looking to put up a straw men''' and '''change the subject'''. Without using '''popular celebrities''' as examples, who would I use that the '''common reader''' would know as cited references in this article? They are just references - not direct comparisons that state that Joe Blow = Dijkstra. Where did I once state that? That is your conjecture, not mine. I'm flattered that you think I'm as great as them - but I don't think so myself. Sorry. (and you were just proven wrong: I admitted I am not at their level)''. ''I am '''not here to claim I am at the level of Linus or Dijkstra'''. That is changing the subject, and is a straw man. I just use them as examples since they are popular people you recognize and know, who rant and criticize. By the way, I have many articles which prove my own ignorance, and I openly admit to being ignorant on many subjects (such as not being a C++ or C expert). So drop that idea right now, that I am comparing myself to others - I am simply referencing others, like how we cite sources.'' ''What I am pointing out on this page is that all humans who are critical and intelligent, will '''question current practices'''. As soon as I question what Google is doing, that must be terrible! Google is the industry! They can't be wrong. The relational model is wrong. Must be. Oh poo poo. Your claim that people won't read me but they will read Dijkstra, is also straw man. The sad thing is, many people do not read Dijkstra, or Fabian, or Darwen and Date, or many other writings from intelligent people. (Linus hates Dijkstra, according to what he has said on newsgroups - and probably doesn't read his material.. so your claim that sensible ranters are read but insensible ones (me) are not read, is false..). Dijkstra, Fabian, or any other ranter are not read by vast populations of people (otherwise Fabian would be rich, for example) - which is '''exactly what this page is about'''. Most of the industry hates ranters, because they are NotNiceEnough. Smart people are not good at marketing their reading material - the industry is better at that (Microsoft documentation is more read than a Dijkstra article is).'' ''Looking through Dijkstra's articles, many of them are pessimistic titles (rant style). Oh poo poo. Don't read those then. I've earned consulting projects because of being a ranter, BTW - people respect it, those who are in the know. Those who pass by my rants and consider me a lunatic, can pass by. I'm okay with that. Confident people '''don't give a damn''' what other non intelligent people think. I give a damn to reply to you, because you are not one of those non intelligent people. If I didn't give a damn, I wouldn't reply.'' ''Why am I spending time here replying to your rant, about my rant? Obviously - because I feel '''you''' are worth '''my''' time. Does that mean, that now I am comparing myself to you - because I am replying to you - I must magically be implying that I am at your level? No. I'm just referencing you, citing you, etc. But I can't really cite you because you didn't sign your name - and I could throw up a straw man argument about how real men sign names, etc.'' Leslie Lamport said, quoting T.S.Eliot: : "The only wisdom we can hope to acquire : Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless." It has also been said: : "Critics are like eunuchs in a harem—they know how it is done, they’ve seen it done every day, but they are unable to do it themselves." I look forward to the day you do or say something genuinely constructive. ''Do you realize the irony here? You are de-constructing me and criticizing me. You are recursively ranting about me ranting. Did you not read my articles? How many times do I have to repeat myself? Obviously, you just skimmed my comments, skimmed my wiki, and forgot to look at the entire picture. You forgot to do some self reflection - look in the mirror. This is an infinite loop with you. My constructive criticism was that '''you''' are worth '''my''' time, which your sponge failed to absorb. You are being the critic - negatively bashing me for being a critic. Do some functional recursion for a minute and find a mirror to look into. You are a fool. I was wrong. You are '''not''' worth my time until you look at the entire picture, and until you look in a mirror. Then you are worth my time.'' '''fun''' times: int; '''c''' done = false; '''b''' res = 0; '''rep''' inc(res) '''til''' done; '''e'''; ''So how many times do I have to repeat myself? I'll not continue. Sorry.'' '''fun''' times: int; '''c''' done = false; '''b''' res = 0; '''rep''' inc(res); '''if''' res = 3 '''do''' break; '''til''' done; '''e'''; Quote: *''"I think that the argument for humility is problematic because Socrates points out other people’s inability to show the same humility. I find that Socrates is actually presenting himself with some arrogance. He is saying that he alone has figured out humility is wisdom, and that others fail to realize this idea." --http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=32078'' ''In order to prove that humility is good, you have to make a strong case for humility - which, is not humble itself - since you are making a strong case for it, and a strong case is not humble (hence recursion again). By the way - do you think Linus, Dijkstra, and Fabian are humble (rhetorical question). People need to speak up, and speaking up is '''not''' about humility or meekness or quietness. I will now write some articles about why intelligent people should '''not''' be humble. Thanks for helping me verify that humility is '''wrong''' for intelligent people. However, fools should remain humble - so that their foolishness does not propagate, i.e. through the industry as we know it. Unfortunately, this is not the case - everyone does indeed pay attention to fools. And I am speaking about the foolish world - not referencing you in this particular paragraph.'' In contrast to what you claim above I've actually read quite a lot of what you've been writing here, and I've read a number of your "articles" on the wiki which you've referenced. I didn't know it was "your" wiki, but thanks for that information. It did seem clear that most of what I read was written by you, I just didn't know if that's because I only found "your" bits, or whether it was all yours. Anyway, I've been reading your strong opinions when they are on topics that interest me, and I've formed my opinion of the value of your comments. I also looked at the impression your writings leave, and wondered if it was intentional, or if you simply wrote without considering the form, as well as the content. I believe you are wrong when you accuse me of not looking at the entire picture, but of course I would believe that. Perhaps I'm wrong in my opinions of you, your writing, your knowledge and your way of expressing it, and so I've been trying to help you see yourself as others see you. Clearly either I've failed, or you don't care. In short, I think much of your ranting on technical issues is misguided, unhelpful, or simply wrong. Some of it is genuinely insightful, but usually that is in criticisms of other people's work, and rarely is it accompanied by any useful alternative suggestions or options. I think this is a shame, because I see ability misapplied, and that's a waste. * '''Non helpful, non constructive, and misguided: such as my critical article about Google (the industry), in which I provide a clear constructive alternative to ''Google File System''. It is called '''Google Relational Database System''. I provide a humorous but HaHaOnlySerious article and drawing, which shows computers spitting out tabular data - which I am ''not'' fully joking about. I only provide some humor (smily faces in the drawing) to ease in the idea to people like ''you'' who are ''hurt'' by my critical constructive intelligent suggestions. Apparently, this is offensive and you missed the entire ''constructive criticism'' parts of the article - such as me stating that Google employees are ''BRILLIANT'' (absolutely serious), but that they lack some relational model knowledge. Oh poo poo. And it is ''true''. My argument is ''fully'' justified. I have also started to build my own cluster system using the very idea I outline in my drawing, and it is not just some academic ''rant'' of mine - but a real world solution to a problem of parsing large data sets. For those who do not see the constructive points about an article, may be destructive themselves. Look in the mirror.''' I appreciate the feedback you've given me. I've considered carefully your comments and assessments. You seem not to understand the meaning of the word "humble", certainly your usage does not match the meaning given in my dictionary. Yes, I've used the dictionary, because clearly you think that's the right place to look for a definition. Your dictionary must differ from mine in this particular case. Specifically, you said: : ''... a strong case is not humble ...'' This is clearly not the case. One can be humble, and yet make a strong case - the two are largely independent. I know many, many high-powered people in computing, mathematics, physics and other fields, some of whom are genuinely humble, and yet they can make compelling cases/arguments. As one example, I knew Dijkstra, and he was humble, even though his writing suggests otherwise to those who didn't know him. Your argument that those who are not fools should not be humble is flawed. You are right that : ''... speaking up is '''not''' about humility or meekness or quietness ...'' It is independent. * '''No, it is not independent. You are fine tuning your own definition of humbleness and picking one tiny part of humbleness definition to suit your needs, which is very arrogant. Had you done your research and not been so arrogant and such an obnoxious bastard, you would find that humble people are generally very quiet, meek, and not very critical or outspoken. I write this in bold, because you need some serious education.''' Finally, you cast aspersions on me because I don't sign my contributions. This is because you don't know even the relatively recent history of this wiki, and you have paraded your ignorance for all to see. That seems symptomatic of much of your writing. You don't care to be or appear insightful or knowledgeable, you seem only to care about appearing opinionated and prolific, even when those opinions are contrary to others who may yet turn out to be right. *'''Could you please stop being so arrogant and criticizing someone else? Could you please be humble? Could you please refrain from calling someone ignorant who has already humbly and openly admitted to ''ignorance'' all over ''his'' wiki which apparently you did not read - since ''you do not do proper research'' before criticizing someone ''else''. And could you please stop stating that someone is not appearing to be insightful or knowledgeable, when ''you yourself appear to be not insightful or knowledgeable''. RightBackAtYou. Could you please also stop spewing your paragraphs and paragraphs of utter nonsense all over this wiki page? Because it is very arrogant and non humble of you - to think that your blabbering is worth anyone's time and reading. Wait, are you criticizing someone for being critical? Am I? RightBackAtYou. Am I criticizing someone for being arrogant? Are you? RightBackAtYou. Check your mirror. Third person view.''' * '''http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Ignorance-The-Cure-For-ADD''' * '''http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Pargence''' * '''http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Success-Through-Focused-Ignorance''' That's the impression you're giving, and the search engines (and way-back machine) have long memories. I've taken into account what you've said about me, and I thought I'd give you the opportunity of seeing yourself as others see you. What you do with that is your choice. * '''Do you know what impression you are giving, AnonymousDonor? Do you know how others see you? What you do with that is your choice. I've taken into account what you've said about me. RightBackAtYou.''' ''Whatever. You don't care what I think, I no longer care what you think. Your technical "contributions" both here and on your wiki appear to say nothing new or interesting, so now I know how much attention to give them. I've left to code and do other useful things. Thank you for playing.'' '''Very arrogant and humble of you to say such things. I've taken into account what you think, and will adjust my writing - even if it means pain for me. Thanks for following ''my'' pattern by the way, that I created, called: IveLeftToCode. And, you are welcome. Very welcome. And thank ''you''.''' '''See also:''' * '''http://z505.com/cgi-bin/qkcont/qkcont.cgi?p=Persons-FUBAR-Can-Be-Influenced''' ''Of '''course''' I know I used "your pattern". Clearly you have an irony-detection problem. Oh well, whatever. GetOverIt and RightBackAtYou. Oh, and I '''love''' the way you twisted the entire exchange on your wiki page. Well done. Good way to make people trust your judgement. I'm pretty sure I know exactly how much "respect" or "confidence" I have in you. I'm pretty sure I haven't subconsciously absorbed your philosophies.'' You know what - you just are NotNiceEnough. I wish you were nicer to me. And I do admit to ignorance and pargence. ------ See also: RudenessFails ---- AprilZeroEight