> > Aren't we representatives of a misunderstood community with few active > ambassadors?
Yes. > Should we be quarrelling among ourselves? Don't we (or, > some of us) have a mission, defined adversaries, allies? Even allies disagree on certain points. > Should there > be quibbling between allies then? If such quibbling enhances the knowledge of the person being abused,more power to such quibbling. I disagree with some elitists on this list who believe any newbie question should be answered with hostility,and believe that there's nothing better than keeping GNU/Linux being a hobbyist operating system,hostile to people who are new and want to find out more,abuse distributions which make GNU/Linux more accessible to newbies,but just being part of the same community doesn't force me to stop trying to change their mind.I would like to quibble on these issues,but I don't fancy being called names on public lists,and therefore stay out of the flamewars related to these issues and these elitists. > > > Aren't we evangelists? AFAIK,not. > Doesn't that put the obligation of decent > behaviour on us? What ambassador acts out of petulance? What sage > calls his congregation dolts, or idiots? What example should we be > setting? Irrelevant,considering that we are not,IMHO,evangelists. > Should we call others stupid, lazy, unthinking, when we were > such ourselves when we started out, and perhaps still are? Agree. <snip> > > I hope you will appreciate this communication for what it is-- an > appeal to the better sensibilities within all of us, to end the > hateful heated repartee we've been seeing over the past few months. Seconded. > > > Thank you. > > Regards > > Suhit Kelkar. > -- > <http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers> > Regards, Easwar Registered Linux user #442065 -- http://mm.glug-bom.org/mailman/listinfo/linuxers
