on Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 05:11:34PM +0000, Colin Watson (cjwatson@debian.org) wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2003 at 11:15:17AM -0500, Wayne Topa wrote:
> > Monique Y. Herman(spam@bounceswoosh.org) is reported to have said:
> > > I understand that you're trying to better the list, and I appreciate
> > > that, but your attitude is a total turnoff. Have you ever heard the
> > > saying, "You catch more flies with honey than with vinegar"? i
> > >
> > > If you want to influence people, craft your sentences so that they
> > > garner respect, not derision.
> >
> > I find that comment applies more to your posts the it does to
> > Karsten.
> >
> > I believe you are rather new to this list. I have been on d-u for
> > over 6 years and find that Karsten is a big contributor, both in
> > Technical expertise and on-target criticism, and have no problem with
> > his attitude whatsoever. You might feel that way because you are a
> > contributor the the OT threads, which I can't check here, as I have
> > deleted them all as they grow and have no wish to check the archives.
>
> I agree with Monique here. I like Karsten, and his posts are almost
> invariably accurate and often very helpful. However, they make
> consistent and significant use of the passive voice to convert opinion
> into fact ("foo is deprecated", "bar is considered incorrect", that kind
> of phrasing) and frequently come across to me as lecturing. Several
> times in the last couple of weeks alone I've found myself thinking "hey,
> that was a curt reply; if I'd been the target of that I'd have felt hard
> done by".
Noted.
Interesting to note that I'm pegged as both curt and lecturing in
subsequent breaths...
At times, I'm replying to posts either:
- In threads in which there have been no responses (I do try to hunt
and shoot these where I can provide an answer, or at least a hint).
Sometimes these are unanswered due to vagueness, oft-repeatedness,
or other mildly frustrating aspects of posts. I try to hold myself
to being curt, rather than openly rude, in the face of what appears
to be mere ineptitude or unconscious laziness. That's a policy which
changes in the face of open rudeness, inconsideration, or hostility
from someone. I'll suck it in for a while. I won't soak it up
indefinitely.
- In threads in which responses have steered consistently wide of the
mark. People who (should) know better posting hearsay,
unresearched, or simply wrong information rankle. I participate in
lists as much to learn as to teach, whether it's by looking up
information, or by being corrected. I generally try to indicate
where my own education is shaky. Pointing people on wild goose
hunts is a disservice. And while I don't want to intimidate people
into not posting: if you _aren't_ sure of yourself, or don't feel
you can contribute positively and meaningfully, either educate
yourself on the topic to the point that you can, post a bit of
minimal guidance to a better resource, or sit tight.
If the confusion's excusable (information has recently changed, is
obscure, not readily obtainable, authorities differ, etc), I'll try
to be gentle. Where someone's clearly talking out their nether
parts, I'll shoot for slightly more firm.
Curtness is generally reflecting a certain belief in "clues for the
clueful". Those interested in the other side of this coin might look at
the corresponding factoid on #debian.
While I try to keep my own affairs out of my list involvement, there
are better and worse days for everyone, and my tone will at times
reflect this.
Passive voice can be taken as imbuing a certain detached authority,
granted. I generally shoot for this when discussing something for which
there's, if not widespread acceptance, at least a well-established
rationale. While acknowledging differences of opinion, I don't care
for the false "two sides to every debate" mindset either: "Earth round?
Views Differ".
Incidentally -- neither "deprecate" nor "incorrect" features highly in
my recent d-u posts. There's also a school of use in which the passive
voice is used to convey a certain bit of indirect, and occasional humor
appreciated by some. IBM's legal team appears to have adopted a similar
expository style....
> Possibly this is an artifact of his rant-o-matics, which are written
> in an essay form whose register I find much too high for replies to
> innocent posters on a mailing list.
Several of those are abstracted from posts written in fits of high
dudgeon, and reflect this.... Many are / have been / will be
subsequently modified.
I _do_ try to keep, where possible, a reasonably neutral tone, though
this isn't always attained.
Among the objectives of the rant-o-matic:
- Readily accessible, frequently repeated, texts. Things you want at
your fingertips to answer frequently recurring issues / questions /
topics.
- Improvable process. I've modified various rants over time as
things change (facts, URLs), or to correct errors (usually
spelling), or to modify tone (yes, many of them are a bit
high-and-mighty). OTOH, my "A (not so) Short Rant / FAQ on the
Subject of Signed E-Mail and Public Key Infrastructure" has amassed
a relatively sizeable following, and is hosted by a number of sites.
It's not exactly what I'd call diplomatic...which may account for a
certain part of its following. That said: if I can improve tone of
rants, I will.
I've found that the same text can meet with wildly different
responses, ranging from appreciation to open hostility. Some people
simply don't take well to suggestions.
- Consistently at least even-toned. Regardless of how exasperated I
am when I invoke a rant, its own text remains constant (unless I go
through and edit it, generally to soften or adapt to current needs,
though). And there's the "thank you" applied to the end
automatically as an additional blow-softener....
And...lecturing has its place. I'm also curmudgeonly enough to think
I've earned stripes to lecture on a couple of topics. I try not to
generalize this beyond my limited competence.
> I'd be perfectly willing to admit that I occasionally sound similar
> myself when I get fed up with something, but I try to keep my tone
> more informal and friendly where I can and would appreciate being told
> when I'm too high-handed.
Point taken, and appreciated.
> > The threads he mentions have been way OT and IMHO do not belong on d-u.
>
> I fully agree with the sentiment, just not the approach.
Addressing this specifically: while there's a lot of similarity of
interests on this list, it's neither a social nor general discussion
list. I see no particular reason the Debian Project or SPI should be
compelled to provide infrastructure for either. One of the people
quoted in this post has hit my own s/n annoyance threshold. While she
may not appreciate being told so, it doesn't change the facts. And it
makes her own lecturing at least mildly ironic.
</lecture> ;-)
Peace.
--
Karsten M. Self <kmself@ix.netcom.com> http://kmself.home.netcom.com/
What Part of "Gestalt" don't you understand?
The black hat community is drooling over the possibility of a secure
execution environment that would allow applications to run in a
secure area which cannot be attached to via debuggers.
- Jason Spence, on Palladium aka NGCSB aka "Trusted Computing"
Attachment:
pgpozVJqDAIUY.pgp
Description: PGP signature