On Fri, 24 Jul 2020 07:21:17 -0400, jr wrote:

> Jim Henderson <nos### [at] nospamcom> wrote:
>> ...
>> I know that you know, deep down, that you behaved badly - in
>> name-calling and in calling me a liar in public about my role in the
>> project.  You *know* that what you did was wrong, but because of my
>> response, you have raised your defenses and can't bring yourself to
>> admit that in public, because you don't want to show weakness (even
>> though admitting one's error is certainly not an admission of weakness
>> - sadly, that's something not enough people understand these days).
> 
> you, me, everybody.  we're all just .. accidents of birth.  and we all
> have to live with the person we've turned into.  but it is a mistake to
> assume what makes you "tick" must, therefore, be the others' motivation
> too.  eg, I can not imagine shooting someone for .. laughs, yet, without
> doubt, such people too exist.  what you write above is, in essence,
> projection, sorry to say.
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_projection>

Fair point.  I remember a few years ago someone making the observation 
that "we don't see others as they are, we see them as we are".

Something I think everyone should keep in mind.

> 
>> ...
> 
> for me "rudeness" is largely reactive, and serves two purposes.  firstly
> to draw the line (wrt behaviour), secondly to cut through the crap in
> situations where polite hand-waving and use of euphemisms are de rigeur
> (which is indicative of stultifying decline, the
> witnessed-by-all-yet-no-one-lifts-a-finger situations. imo).  and you
> only need to look at our, um, differences.  what I see (from you)
> is busy shooting the messenger, because you find it convenient (?) to
> value the "shape" of the message and how it's delivered, over its
> content.  hence, all the 'jerk' and 'dick' .. bluster[*].  (btw, here in
> the UK 'jerk' simply is the stuff you rub into a butchered chicken, ie a
> marinade)

The "shape" as you put it of the message is important, however.  If you 
want to motivate people (going back to what we talked about with 
motivation/loyalty), the approach one takes matters.  It's not incumbent 
on the recipient of the message to interpret the intent and motivation of 
the person sending the message.  It's incumbent on the sender of the 
message to know their audience and connect with them in a meaningful way.

There are ways to be direct and "cut through the crap" without being 
rude.  It is *generally* more effective to take a positive approach 
rather than inflaming in order to get a reaction.

> [*] 'bluster' meaning unproductive, wasted time, in addition to the
> by-definition grandstanding.

Yes, I do understand the English language - both the US 'edition' and 
Queen's English.  You have no reason to have known that before, so this 
isn't a slam, merely a statement of fact.  I have joked for years about 
being "bilingual" because of my familiarity with both variants.

> so you keep writing that you picked the argument because you consider CC
> your friend, and acted to defend him.  is what friends are for, right? 
> now tell me, how much time, roughly, have you spent on this dispute? 
> you have the skill set,
> and previous experience with the wiki[*], so why did you not invest the
> time you "wasted" on me, trying to make the wiki a more attractive place
> for potential users?  even just half an hour a week will, over time,
> make a massive difference.  would your friend not gain more benefit from
> that than from sifting through "our shit" (your's + mine)?  and while on
> CC.  I would hope (and actually do think) that he's capable of calling
> me out of order if he felt .. attacked or demeaned.
> 
> [*] I _could_ envy you for being able to provide such practical,
> hands-on support/help.

How I use my time is my own matter.  That said, while I certainly *could* 
have done some of the things that you ask, I'm not a graphic designer or 
a layout wizard.  It takes a village to make changes like that that are 
going to work.  Is there some reason you haven't used the time to, say, 
learn about how to use a wiki, learn to code C++, or consider other ways 
in which you might contribute to the project other than, as you put it, 
"stir the anthill" and deal with the fallout of being rude in doing so 
and then spending the time doubling down and defending that decision 
rather than just saying "yeah, I could've handled that better, sorry" and 
moving on.

We both could have used the time in other ways, and we both chose to 
pursue this interaction instead.

> 
> lastly, you mentioned BE, and contrasted our respective approaches to
> show me ..
> the error of my ways, so to speak.  well, BE wrote something about me
> acting as the "lightning rod", and yes, I set out to .. stir the
> anthill.  then CC wrote in some reply to BE, quote:
> "But you know what? Despite the fact this thread has been a bit, um,
> rowdy, it's shown me that there's still a bunch of people who do care
> and has helped improve my feelings about the whole thing. I might even
> enjoy getting stuck back into the code, time will tell."

Who's to say, though, that more people wouldn't have said "you know what, 
I would as well" had you taken the time and considered your audience to 
not engage in using a negative approach to get what you wanted?  You saw 
Chris' response that the negativity was not something that was helping 
him want to even answer the questions raised (some of which, as I've 
said, were good questions, and could have been phrased more).  Now if the 
project lead is saying "the negativity was not helping here" - how many 
others have filtered the discussion entirely because you didn't show some 
basic respect to the guy who's put 25+ years of his life, his own time 
and money, into this project?

Generally, people react better to a positive message than a negative 
message.  It's only when all other approaches have failed (e.g. the 
current protesting going on in the US) where engaging in more negative 
tactics becomes necessary.

IMO, the POV-Ray project is not the right place to engage in negative 
approaches to getting attention, because it's a volunteer effort 
(partly), and because a strong community supports each other rather than 
tearing each other down.

> now for me, becoming persona non grata, in your eyes and those of
> others, will be a small price to pay, just for reading that.

I've been around the 'net long enough to not particularity care what 
strangers on the 'net think about me.

Calling me a liar, however, when I haven't engaged in telling 
falsehoods....That's a question of integrity.  You specifically called me 
a liar for saying I wasn't a part of TAG, and then held up my canceling a 
post where I realized I had not read closely enough (using well-known 
functionality of the NNTP protocol) so I could write a more accurate 
response as evidence that I was lying about being a part of the team.

You were corrected on that.  You didn't know that NNTP had that 
functionality.  That's cool.  You learned something.  I would appreciate 
your acknowledgment that you made a mistake and that I did *not* in fact 
misrepresent my relationship with the project.  I think that is a 
reasonable expectation.

-- 
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and 
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw

Post a reply to this message