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

List:       kde-devel
Subject:    Re: Reconciliation? [formerly "Re: apologies"]
From:       "Aaron J. Seigo" <aseigo () kde ! org>
Date:       2008-06-13 5:31:10
Message-ID: 200806122331.15518.aseigo () kde ! org
[Download RAW message or body]

[Attachment #2 (multipart/signed)]


On Thursday 12 June 2008, Mark A. Taff wrote:
> > 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".

great. we're getting somewhere.

> > yes, you make the point well that you did indeed level a personally
> > offensive missive.
>
> No argument here that that was offensive. 

thank you.

> 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.

good to know.

> I subscribe to tit for tat (shown to be a highly effective strategy). 

yep, so effective that i'm charting my departure from this project. 
congratulations on your pyrrhic victory.

> It was just as offensive as being told that the way
> we work (the classic desktop methaphor) was broken and problematic.

pointing out that a given software interaction pattern is no longer solely 
capable of covering the modern use cass is as offensive as calling someone a 
tyrant? no.

you've taken my assessment of the file centric, single literal folder view 
desktop paradigm as a personal indictment. it isn't. it's a technical 
assessment, and one that provides a way for you to continue working however 
you please. there was nothing personal about it.

calling someone a tyrant, among other things that were said, is directly 
personal.

i do recognize that you felt offended by my claiming that the traditional 
desktop architecture is obsolete. i don't particularly connect with the 
emotional state that led you to be offended over that, but i do recognize you 
feel that way.

> That the new way was the 'right way'.

that is an assertion you have formed in your own mind, not one that reflects my 
thinking nor my actions. while you are free to choose your opinions, i reject 
your attempt to project them upon me.

i believe one point of confusion here is that you think when i talk about 
improving things i'm talking about "folderview as a box vs full screen 
folderview". i'm not. i'm talking about the technological framework required 
to allow us to *choose* between those and an infinite number of other 
approaches. in other words, between an approach that proscribes exactly one 
way of working (which is they way you happen to like) and one that allows any 
form needed (including outside of the desktop form factor)

> > > 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

for the last time, i never called anyone stupid. i said that *I* wasn't 
"stupid in the head". can you please get that straight?

> > 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

thanks.

> not enagage in any argumentum ad hominem, and I don't think I used any
> other fallacious arguments, either.

another point we'll just have to disagree on.

> Less of you saying that we should to learn to develop software.

this is perhaps the one statement in the flow of that conversation that i think 
we both agree on the intended meaning of.

> 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.

the US Today comment was not aimed at americans. US Today is a well known 
bench mark for purposeful clarity and simplicity in english writing for mass 
consumption both at home and abroad. i tend to write in a way that wouldn't 
make it into US Today due to my use of (sometimes overly) complex structure to 
convey my narrative. it isn't the easiest to read for many people, 
particularly those for whome english is not their first language. that was my 
entire point: i addressed the issue in too complex a manner in my blog.

i've explained this a couple times now to you. please consider taking it as it 
was meant rather than remaining patriotically offended over it.

btw, i grew up and went to school in the states.

-- 
Aaron J. Seigo
humru othro a kohnu se
GPG Fingerprint: 8B8B 2209 0C6F 7C47 B1EA  EE75 D6B7 2EB1 A7F1 DB43

KDE core developer sponsored by Trolltech


["signature.asc" (application/pgp-signature)]

>> Visit http://mail.kde.org/mailman/listinfo/kde-devel#unsub to unsubscribe <<


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