Henri Yandell wrote:
On 3/28/06, Jonathan Revusky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
However, I'm also certain that escalating these conversations gets us
nowhere. The only positive solution I know of is to try to point the
conversation towards constructive issues and not destructive. It's not
to retaliate with much the same approach.
You started off well, Henri, but what do you mean by "retaliate with
much the same approach"? Do you mean these guys doing this are doing
what I did at some point?
When did I post anybody's private email to the list? When did I sign an
email by any name but my own?
I mean the same style of approach, rather than details.
Methinks you are trying to weasel out. :-(
The "details" in question involve posting private correspondence to a
public list, spoofing identities. Also, there is a continual pattern of
people responding to messages with personal insults and making no
attempt to engage in legitimate debate.
These are not little "details" that can be abstracted away unless your
intent is to mislead and deceive. My messages have always focused on
legitimate arguments and debate. To abstract away with this "same style
of approach" line seems basically mendacious.
So, Henri, I'd like you to retract the above statement, the stuff about
how the people engaging in these attacks against me were "retaliating
with the same approach". It constitutes a very unworthy attempt on your
part to distort the truth and misprepresent what has been happening. I
read this several times and I consider it to be such a distortion of the
truth that you owe me an apology.
Now, if you still maintain that behavior of mine has been broadly
comparable to this James Mitchell posting private email or Rick
Reumann's lame spoof or even Larry Measors's juvenile "butt-monkey" post
with no attempts to say anything legitimate, then please produce such
examples. I will make it very easy for you. Every single message I have
posted here up to this point in the conversation can be found here:
http://revusky.com/strutsmessages.txt
The stuff I wrote is clearly distinct from the quoted material by the
usual convention. The quoted material begins with >, right? The quoted
material is necessary for context, of course.
It's a straight text file, so you can simply point out line numbers, if
need be.
I submit to you that I have never engaged in this kind of personal
attack. I have said sharp things to people, but they were appropriate --
or at the very least understandable -- in the context of a legitimate,
perhaps heated debate. If this is not so, in your opinion, provide the
line numbers.
Otherwise, this stuff about how I did the same things to these people
that they are doing, you have to retract it because it's not true.
If someone
enters the conversation with a perceived aggression, retaliating with
the same aggression is going to get you nowhere other than the warmth
generated by our combined cpus, network cards and the wonder of
adrenalin bursts.
Here is the same mendacious discourse: "the same aggression" etcetera.
You are clearly implying that I have done the same things these people
have done. This is not true.
It takes a 5-second reply to make a flamewar, it takes a 5 minute
reply to avoid one.
Look, Henri, I'll try to meet you a bit halfway. I probably really need
to work on being more diplomatic. I could learn something from you
there. But I think you should learn a greater respect for the truth.
Diplomacy has to be balanced by some respect for the truth. And that
does mean that sometimes you end up saying things that people don't like.
Also, to be saying: "I don't like you doing this to JR, but JR is a bad
guy" could lead these kinds of people to interpret this as a sort of
"nudge, nudge, wink, wink". I really hope that wasn't your intention.
"I don't like JR's style, but I'm not going to give up my own style in
reacting to the email".
Well, if a key component of your "style" involves mendacity, I think you
really ought to find some other "style", not necessarily adopting my
style, but simply a "style" that incorporates a respect for the truth.
Again, I provide you everything I ever wrote on this list.
http://revusky.com/strutsmessages.txt
If you want to claim that I engage in ad-hominem attacks like these
people, back up what you say. I don't think you can.
Jonathan Revusky
--
lead developer, FreeMarker project, http://freemarker.org/
P.S. In your opinion, why did Struts development stagnate?
As a general opinion aimed at everyone:
[all]
Ranting, moving between private/public threads, spoofing and joking
without it being very obvious [that's why we have the smilies, use
'em] are of no value to the community, it's something an individual
does to neutralize the emotion and adrenalin - and it harms your own
position within the community.
Take time over replies, take time over the original emails (don't just
do a braindump and send, that helps nobody), de-escalate rather than
escalate. _Especially_ when you are talking about emotional issues
like brand and community. What works for a technical argument does not
work for a social argument.
This is just an opinion. I've had just the one tiny patch applied to
Struts, so have not contributed to this community. Take it how you
want.
[/all]
Hen
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
