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>

> ...

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)

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

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.

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."

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.


jr.

Post a reply to this message