Re: Why do I bother?
On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 07:17:39PM +0800, Alex Nordstrom wrote:
> Saturday, 25 February 2006 17:38, Andrew Cady wrote:
> > On Sat, Feb 25, 2006 at 04:52:25PM +0800, Alex Nordstrom wrote:
> > > (CCing you because you request it.)
> >
> > Did not. (No bother).
>
> From the headers of your messages:
>
> Mail-Followup-To: Andrew Cady <d@jerkface.net>,
> debian-user@lists.debian.org
>
> > > That is not the purpose of this list.
> >
> > Nor is this.
>
> Discussions regarding the appropriate conduct of the list, whilst
> secondary to its purpose, are best held in an open manner. The same
> cannot be said for exercises in haughtiness.
>
> You are certainly not the only one to find the OP quite rude. I believe,
> however, that the best response to rudeness is to rise above the
> offender and meet him with tolerance.
My reading of the original post? he was up against a deadline, tired,
frustrated, maybe depressed, and at the end of his rope. His emotional
state got into his writing.
>
> (Before you attempt once again to turn my own arguments against me, I
> should state that tolerance cannot reasonably be expected to extend to
> intolerance itself. Hopefully, the distinction between intolerance and
> rudeness is not too subtle.)
>
> Where appropriate, one should point out any rude statements in a calm
> and direct fashion, explaining why they are considered as such (many
> new users simply fail to fully realise the scope of the volunteer
> efforts that make Debian possible). This is much more constructive than
> meeting hostility with hostility.
I tried that, and foun out that his ISP's spam filter completely blocked
list posts with a challenge that had to be replied to. I went to the
trouble of responding to the challenge, and got a message through to
him. He was quite polite and rational by that time, and was planning to
install sarge next.
>
> If one is not capable of a tolerant response (and I can certainly
> sympathise with this), silence is an acceptable alternative.
>
> Any other response will reflect poorly on the Debian and Free software
> communities. (For reasons why we should care about our image, refer to
> your next tax statement, web server log, or spam folder.)
>
> It was quite obvious by the time you responded that the OP is not
> subscribed to the list.
He is, apparently, following the list through the archives. He seemed
quite aware of everything that had been posted.
> Furthermore, it is also quite obvious that you
> responded in bad faith for no other purpose than asserting superiority.
> As such, it served only to make you feel good whilst wasting the time
> of over 3,000 other subscribers and denigrating the community.
The first flame war about rudeness I found amusing. By now, the
discussion had been done to death, and has become tedious. If it
weren't necessary to educate people who haven't apparently
understood the point of the previous discussion, I'd say end the
rudeness thread.
>
> In spite of this, you continually fail to accept that you are in the
> wrong. As I can understand the frustration of the OP's rudeness, this
> is a bigger concern than the nature of your initial response.
-- hendrik
Reply to: