Re: Technical committee resolution
On Mon, Mar 31, 2008 at 11:34:37PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > Indeed, it does seem a bit strange to use those terms in this context,
> > where me and the person whose idea you attacked are developers with no
> > particular elevated position over you, and you are a member of the
> > technical committee.
> What does my membership in the tech ctte have anything to do
> with the price of beans in Idaho? Are you implying that I would abuse
> the powers vested in the office in a petty manner? It did not even
> occcur to me, and the fact it occurred to you says something.
> > Don't you see that your blunt rebuke for the idea can easily be
> > understood as condescension, and that, in that light, it would be more
> > prudent to avoid the flaming style as well as coarse language?
> I called the Idea silly. Still do. I refuse to be censored by
> your beliefs, whatever they might be. You certainly are not limiting
> your contribution to this discussion; I do not see my tech ctte
> membership as a handicap.
This is what I referred to as the flaming style... You read one sentence,
interpret it, reply to it; read next sentence, interpret it, reply to it.
There is no caching. Without it, you get to think that I meant something in
the first sentence, but I explicitly said what I meant in the second
We agree to disagree, and that's fine, but please respect my paragraphs :)
> > But in a reasonably serious discussion on the composition of the same
> > committee, IMHO a bit more tact would be in order. Ultimately, for your
> > own sake, certainly not mine...
> Err, is that some kind of a threat? Why would increasing my
> blood pressure by self censorship be good for my sake? This is puzzling
> (and somewhat amusing, I must confess)
If I really have to spell it out... if people think you don't show tact
and prudence where appropriate, they may not have a good opinion of you.
2. That which causes joy or happiness.