Den 14. april 2014 08:57, skrev Emiliano Heyns:
Alright, let me then call it as I see it. I don't remember Patrick
complaining,
No, me neither. Makes one wonder, doesn't it?
and that spectacular understanding of yours hasn't
translated into any action towards improved documentation, so I wonder
what exactly your beef is.
With what? The documentation? As I mentioned, those who understand
what's going on in SyncEvolution, can't put the finger on what's wrong
with its documentation. I think I'm one of those, and so although I
*could* try to write something, I'm really not sure what kind of
explanation would be better than what's already there. So discussing
with users is of interest, to understand what kind of explanation would
work.
That you're interested in how communication works is in that context
pretty hilarious. I am only well-versed in formal communication -
between analytic philosophy and aspergers I know where my handicap lies.
Then I wish most other people also knew themselves that well.
One of my handicaps is that I rely too much on my intuition. Because
it's often right, I trust it, sometimes enough to do what it says even
without consciously understanding why.
But with your interest in mind, what did you envision to be the reaction
to your exasperated claim that this is taking an amazingly long time to
sink in? What did you intend to convey or achieve? I don't see much
positive in that particular piece of communication.
I guess that question has three aspects:
1) what message I wanted to express, if anything;
2) what reaction I expected, if any;
3) why I wanted that reaction, if it mattered to me.
Then my answers, for now, are:
1) I didn't say "sink in", I said "get through". (There's a subtle
difference, in that "sink in" would probably mean it's just your fault,
but "get through" has an alternative interpretation, that something
about the communication or message could be at fault.)
Anyway, I already said what it meant. That is, I'm not saying you've
done anything wrong, I just found this stuff amazing. It strongly
suggests that something is wrong and something ought to be done to
improve the situation. That's both a negative and a positive.
2) Everyone reacts differently, and a person's reaction to things tell
something about how they think. The expected typical response from a
person with average self-esteem might have been mild irritation,
tempered by mixed feelings about the absurdity of the situation, and
some patience with other Internet people's curiously lousy social
skills. (That is, an average person might say "ok, that was not nice,
but I've seen worse, I'll just reply with a snide remark and forget
about it afterwards".)
3) Consciously, I knew I might get a snide remark back, but didn't care.
Intuitively, however, I think I did hope you might step back and think
about not only the information itself, but the way it's organized, and
if this mess can be sorted out by asking a different type of questions
than you've been using so far. (Sometimes an emotional "kick" helps
people think about things differently. Sometimes not.)
Anyway, I've found this exchange interesting; I wanted, and expected, to
learn something, and I did. So, thank you for that. And maybe I now have
a slightly better idea about how information like this should be
communicated.
So, if there are no hard feelings, and considering that the Easter
holidays may finally give me a little free time, then I could perhaps
try to draft up a new description of SyncEvolution for you, if you like.
_______________________________________________
SyncEvolution mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.syncevolution.org/mailman/listinfo/syncevolution
