[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread] 

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Reconciliation? [formerly "Re: apologies"]
From:       "Mark A. Taff" <marktaff () comcast ! net>
Date:       2008-06-13 4:26:48
Message-ID: 200806122126.48512.marktaff () comcast ! net
[Download RAW message or body]


Subject changed by private request.

On Thursday 12 June 2008 19:48:10 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> On Thursday 12 June 2008, Mark A. Taff wrote:
> > On Thursday 12 June 2008 00:10:18 Aaron J. Seigo wrote:
> > > > we never said anyone was stupid, or that they
> > > > spoke without thinking, or weren't capable of reading, or couldn't
> > > > develop software, etc, etc.
> >
> > Those are *not* direct quotes of me Aaron, as anyone is free to go back
> > and see.  The first quote you cite wasn't me.
>
> yes, i know. however, you said "we never said" (see above), so i picked
> from the body of emails "we" wrote.

Point taken.  I should have said "I" in that passage.  "We" is too ambiguous 
and generally inclusive of other's words to have any real merit in that 
context.

> > Have just a modicum of
> > professionalism and attention to detail, would you please?  At least
> > check your facts once before publishing.
>
> -1 ... this is the kind of mudslinging that is making it particularly
> challenging for me to deal with you, and some of the others in that thread.
>
> if your goal is to just argue without purpose and piss me off, i guess
> you've got a very efficient system going. if your goal is to arrive at a
> productive and positive end, please consider the impact of these kinds of
> broadsides upon he conversation.
>
> > Also, when you quote, the general rule it to use elipsis to indicate
> > removed content, and also not to remove content that changes the meaning
> > of the quote.
> >
> > Here is the full quote for the second:
> >
> > "The consequences of current plasma are that the masses for whom the
> > exisiting Desktop metaphor is highly effective are being told by the
> > deeds of the Plasma developers to take long walk off a short pier."
>
> the part i replaced with elipses did not change the emotional context at
> all for me. that was what i was trying to communicate to you. you can say,
> "i didn't mean it that way" but all i can offer in return is "that is
> exactly how it came across on this side".

Ok. I don't know about the "emotional context" as that is up to each person, 
but it is indeed perfectly reasonable that that is "how it came across".

> > And here is the third quote, back in the context you stripped it from:
> >
> > "[from Michael Hoffer:]
> >
> > > The KDE/Plasma developers are not the first ones who realize the use
> > > of the classical Desktop folder is problematic.
> >
> > The Plasma devs need to realize that the Plasma desktop is problematic!"
>
> again, i don't see how this changes the claim in any meaningful way.

We disagree on that, and I think we can just agree to disagree. ;-)

> > And here is the third quote, in full context:
> >
> > "KDE used to be all about letting you work the way you wanted. ?Now we
> > have interface tyrants that want to force users to work the way *they*
> > think is the Right Way(tm). ?I've got news for you--I don't give a hoot
> > how *you* think I should work. ?I want the freedom to work in a manner
> > that is effective for *me*."
>
> yes, you make the point well that you did indeed level a personally
> offensive missive.

No argument here that that was offensive.  I don't see any need to not be 
offensive when responding to offensive remarks made towards me.  I do not 
turn the other cheek.  I subscribe to tit for tat (shown to be a highly 
effective strategy).  It was just as offensive as being told that the way we 
work (the classic desktop methaphor) was broken and problematic.  That the 
new way was the 'right way'.

> > And I did say in my reply to your private email that perhaps my use of
> > the word tyrant was a bit too much.
>
> and thanks for meeting me at least that far towards half-way on the matter.
>
> it still doesn't change the fact that it is what you called me and that it
> did, at least for me, very much set the tone in that conversation.
>
> > Aaron, in which one of those quotes did I call anyone stupid?  In which
> > one did I say they couldn't code?  Or that they spoke without thinking?
> > Or that they weren't capable of reading?  That's right, none of them.
>
> Mark, when i was called a tyrant, that plasma is problematic, that i'm in
> denial etc. that read very directly to me as saying exactly these things.

Aaron, you may have read it that way, but I never actually *said* those 
things.  In fact, those (coding, reading, being stupid, etc.) are all things 
that you in fact *did* say to me and others.  While you may feel that I said 
those things, it was actually you that said them to me and others!

I can appreciate how you felt--as I've said, tyrant is a harsher meaning than 
I intended.  I'm not sure what would have been a more accurate reflection of 
my view, but certainly less than tyrant. 

As for Plasma being problematic, I do not see how that could be construed as 
me saying that you don't know how to develop software, or can't read anything 
more complex than USA Today, etc.  Certainly you have called other software 
problematic in the past, and I'm equally certain you didn't mean to imply by 
that that the developers can't read or think.

I mean, you've said that kicker/kdesktop was a nghtmare to maintain, but 
certainly that view doesn't imply that you also think the kicker authors are 
incapable of reading anything more complex than the USA Today, or didn't know 
how to develop software.

We all know that very often our demands of a piece of software (kicker) 
outgrows the capabilities of its architecture, and it needs to be redesigned 
in a more robust manner that meets current and projected future needs.

> perhaps you and the others in that thread weren't trying to say those
> things, but it is precisely what got communicated. i'm perfectly willing to
> accept that it was just a large set of failed communication wrapped in
> rather poorly chosen words written with more emtionally charged verbage
> than it should have been ... but it doesn't suddenly justify anything.
>
> i guess at this point i'm looking for a little less "we did nothing wrong!"
> and a little more understanding. it's your choice, and each possible course
> of action has consequences (positive, negative, neutral, a mix...)

I will certainly concede that my language has been unyiedlng, though I did not 
enagage in any argumentum ad hominem, and I don't think I used any other 
fallacious arguments, either.

Nobody is asking or expecting you to not be a forceful and vocal defender of 
Plasma.  All we want is less argumentum ad hominem.

Less of you saying we are incapable of understanding just because you were 
unable to persuade us.  Less of you saying Americans can't read anything more 
complex than the USA Today.   Less of you saying that we should to learn to 
develop software.

I mean, if you want to offend U.S. combat veterans such as myself, a geat way 
is to make broad anti-American statements, like that we can't read anything 
more complex than a newspaper.

I expect you to argue forcefully in favor of the merits of Plasma.  I just 
want less of you denigrating my, and other peoples', abilities to read, code, 
think, understand, etc.

If you can agree to eliminate the argumentum ad hominem, I can agree to make 
an extra effort to phrase my objections in ways that are less forceful and 
less likely to offend others, and more considerate.  Obviously, I can't 
control peoples' reactions, but I can increase my efforts to be more 
considerate of how my words might be understood by others.

My intent is just to try and get you to eliminate the argumentum ad hominem.  
Also, this weekend I will investigate forming a "KDE Klassic" coding project 
to help ensure that all of KDE3's configuration options, features, etc, are 
implemented in KDE4.  That should hopefully be a productive effort.

Those are my intentions.

Regards,

Mark

 
>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<
[prev in list] [next in list] [prev in thread] [next in thread]