Re: Dealing gently with our peers (was: confusion about non-free)
On Tue, 5 Aug 2008 15:08:56 +0200
Robert Millan <email@example.com> wrote:
> I did. It's obvious I didn't consider them well enough, but I assure you
> when I added 'Friendly' there (which is not part of my usual signature) I was
> considering the personal factors.
This was a thin cloak for words which said otherwise. To paraphrase:
"You are confused"
"You apparently do not know the social contract"
I do not wish to drag out the original injury. I am over it. You made
an earlier attempt at apology (couched in the words of justification)
which I accepted, understanding that it was not your intent to hurt
me. The only reason for me to continue posting in this thread is to
see if I can help make the way we, as a project, relate to each other
> My message goes straight to the point and sounds harsh. I realized this, but
> I didn't think it would hurt your feelings. It's my fault if it did, so in
> general I'll try to be more careful in the future.
> I thank you for that, but my concern was _not_ specificaly about your
> statement. Rather, I'm worried about this perception being the norm in
> our community today.
I understand. It looks like there is a good discussion happening now
about this valid concern.
> TBH, I didn't think about this option. Now I see that it is what I should have
> done. Do you accept my apologise?
I am comforted to hear you say this. Moreso than before. To
re-iterate: yes, I accept.
> > The ideals you were defending here justified your means?
> Maybe you won't believe this, but whereas I believe my ideals justify being
> exposed _myself_ to public bashing, I don't think they justify exposing
I'll accept that at face value.
,-. nSLUG http://www.nslug.ns.ca firstname.lastname@example.org
\`' Debian http://www.debian.org email@example.com
` [ gpg 395C F3A4 35D3 D247 1387 2D9E 5A94 F3CA 0B27 13C8 ]
[ pgp 7F DA 09 4B BA 2C 0D E0 1B B1 31 ED C6 A9 39 4F ]