[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Tinycc-devel] etiquette
Re: [Tinycc-devel] etiquette
Sun, 03 Feb 2008 10:48:31 +0800
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:22.214.171.124) Gecko/20070802 SeaMonkey/1.1.4
Laurens Simonis wrote:
>> Is there some mailing list etiquette about not mentioning another's name?
> The above is ment to be as objective as possible. Personally, I think it's a
> shame that this hostility exists, and think it's counterproductive. He comes
> back to help, and _still_ isn't apperciated. I, for one, _do_ apperciate his
To reiterate my position to avoid misunderstanding, I am rather
neutral about Rob and I try to be tolerant. I have defended his
actions on this list before. But when I see time and effort and
resources being wasted, I guess I am firm, but I don't think I am
evil. So, that statement in my last post is not a kick to anybody,
it is a kick at myself. It implies a bit of list-specific cultural
knowledge. It's too bad the English language carries to much
The above is not helpful; grishka clarified a few things, I
thanked Rob in my postings. By the above, it appears that people
might see aggression where there is none. Asserting one's point of
view while allowing for a plurality of viewpoints is not attacking
someone. If anyone read aggression, then they are reading too much
into it -- and at some point, any statement might be construed as
aggressive -- making a blowup a 100% certainty. This posting
itself -- my saying a lot in response to the above -- might also
be construed as "an unhappy me whacking you". Heh. If people
choose to think so, there's nothing one can do to smooth things.
For example, if X with a virtual avatar or emphatic model of Y
'sees' the situation as Y whacking X, then Y can't do anything to
smooth things in a non-face-to-face situation, because the
emphatic model is in X's head.
Be warned that this can happen to anyone else on the list.
Everyone should be less sensitive, but I guess this is a basic and
apparently intractable problem with online discussions. It is an
interesting scientific or psychological phenomenon, and I don't
think I have a solution for it.
> Also, I think that since this is the only place to ask questions about tcc,
> is the perfect spot for Mike's question. Where else should he go but here? Of
> course, there's no guarantee that someone will answer, but just sometimes,
> someone might just have had the exact same problem, so why not ask? If you
> want to answer, don't :)
In retrospect, that's somewhat true. In a low traffic list like
this where stuff don't get a response routinely, someone coming
here for this kind of help is not likely to get a response.
Sometimes, that leads to hostility when newbies get frustrated,
but Mike has been a perfect gentlemen, bless you. My other
examples were not meant to imply anything except that problem
descriptions should be backed by a certain amount of useful
investigative effort. Also, the question was not really about tcc
and the problem description was somewhat misleading unless one
actually tested it.
I guess we should end this here. At least I will. I will try to
avoid promoting self-sufficiency and anti-spoon-feeding in the
future. :-) ;-)
Kein-Hong Man (esq.)
Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia