Re: When a discussion goes bad...
On Thu, Mar 15, 2007 at 08:37:02PM +0100, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> MJ Ray wrote:
> > Jonas Smedegaard <email@example.com> wrote [quoted with permission]:
> >> [...] I kept repeating same argument, which X
> >> refused to accept. Each time I repeated, I raised my voice a bit,
> > Just an aside for future reference: unless the other person is hard of
> > hearing, I can't see that approach ending well. If one can't explain
> > it any way that the other person will accept, then I think there comes
> > a point when one should reply:
> > 1/ "let's see what Joe thinks" - involve someone who understands your
> > view, who will hopefully feed back to you more reasonably if the other
> > person has a valid point;
> > 2/ "the solution must do Y" - challenge them directly to produce a
> > solution which meets your criteria; and/or
> > 3/ "I'm here, so I win" - pull rank, then shut up and endure the flames.
> Thanks. That is a fine listing.
> For the concrete case, I'd already practiced both 1/ and 2/ on IRC for
> months. 2/ had been turned down (repeatingly and insistingly, to put it
> mildly) as incompetence on my part. We then met in person, only to be
> nagged with same claim of incompetence and insisting on fixing my
> mistakes, which made me loose my temper and yell. For the remains of the
> 4 day meeting I practiced 3/.
He, neat, you must have a nice time machine, since i was in erkelenz only from
friday night to sunday end-of-afternoon. Maybe you could lend it to us, so we
could go and release etch on time, and maybe redo all the past and avoid all
the hate that flowed in all those flamewars since then.