On 2021.09.09 23:28, lkcl wrote:
Pete: thank you for pointing out that you've actively contributed, do keep
emphasising that, it will help undo some of the damage.
Talk about implication loaded statement here.
So you are taking as fact that everybody is agreeing with your *opinion*
that I am causing damage?
Let me be as bold as you then and state that there's probably an equal
number of people who think that the greater damage was done when you
decided that you couldn't let Vagrant's naturally concluding statement
sit, and went on a personal attack against my person, by misreading
Vagrant's take as a justification that this was somehow okay.
So you may want to contemplate that, instead of assuming that everyone
is on the same page as yours.
i do get that you feel you're not making "demands": i have had people regularly
misconstrue what i say for over 20 years. thus, i am actually quite "entuned" now to the
subtleties
I get it, you are somehow more "entuned" to pass judgement than somebody
else on this list. And of course, in that portrait, I am the black
sheep, because I dared express general disappointment at the actions of
some people on this list, whom I truly expected to know better, so that
we could, for once, avoid this whole charade where I or somebody else
has to barge in to try to correct incomplete or incorrect statements,
and then have to contend with the irritation of some of the people who
tried to champion these statements... or worst, a never-ending lecture
from people who misread what one has been trying to accomplish for the
betterment of the list as some kind of attack on their fiefdom.
If you read my posts carefully, you find that the only slight request
that I have made is that Debian (i.e. people on this list whom I expect
to know better) should
the two key phrases which tell us the mis-step that you keep making are "whom i expect to know
better" and "should".
So I am not entitled to expect people to know better, after people have
been repeatedly posting on this list that there exist other methods of
installing Debian, besides pre-built ISO, and yet we were still seeing
pre-built being advertised as the only known way?
I do fully expect some people on this list to know better. Just like I
also fully expected some people on this list to know better than go into
a complete misconstruction about how placing the nonfree Pi firmware
blobs on the same media as a Debian installation media could somehow be
problematic.
And I also expected people other than me to intervene when they saw that
incomplete statements, incorrect statements and other inaccuracies were
being posted here (which some did).
But then again, seeing how doing so runs the risk of devolving into a
personal attack, and how quick tempered some of the people appear to be
here, I'm starting to understand why a few list members may think twice
before trying to chime in.
it *really isn't* ok to make what can only be described as "implication-loaded
statements" about individual contributors that are in effect Sovereign entities.
I am disappointed in some people in this mailing list. Am I not entitled
to that? I fully expected that the people who would bother to post on
this list would try to paint a more realistic picture of what was being
discussed. And I certainly did not expect to have to still be here
trying to explain how your biased personal attacks are unbecoming from
what is supposed to be a technical mailing list.
"should" implies that you are directly criticising them for *not* doing
something...
If you want to call that criticizing, then I am criticizing some people
on list for not seemingly not remembering items that have been discussed
here before, when it was relevant to bring them up, as well as people
not intervening to point out said relevant items. I have been doing so,
because, unfortunately, this is not the first time I'm seeing it
happening. And as an "entuned" dialectician, I would certainly expect
you to understand that not all criticism is negative, because, in my
view, these statements are actually fairly neutral (i.e. you take them
in your stride while trying to keep them in mind, and move on).
It's like picking up a bug you introduced in code. While expressing
disappointment at finding it, you might tell yourself that you should
have done better, as well as lay the expectation that you'll remember it
enough so that you don't do the same mistake again. Or, if it's not the
first time this kind of bug is being reported in a project, then
somebody else might also state that they expected the project to do
better and express the idea that developers of the project should know
better than continuing to introduce these kind of bugs.
for which, like any Sovereign State, you have absolutely no right whatsoever to
expect them to do,
So a teacher has no right to expect a student to do better? Or to try to
remember things that are very relevant to their curriculum? Or to
correct them when they state something that can be demonstrated as
factually incorrect?
I'm kinda curious here: Have you ever tried to bring the "Students are
their own Sovereign State" defence when you were at school? If so, how
did it go?
When someone is trying to teach a group, that has been failing to
address the above behaviours, can't they tell them that they are
disappointed in them and that they should collectively do better?
"expect to know better" is again along the same lines: much as i hate to have
to spell this out to you, it's terribly insulting.
Insult is not the intent, but if some people do feel it that way, then
maybe it'll be helpful. Because I could really use not having to remind
people on this list about the same thing over and over.
it comes with the loaded implication that "everything they did - unpaid, remember -
before you came along, is shit. because *you* said so".
That escalated quickly. "I would expect better" equates to "everything
you did before me is shit"?
Do you actually pause to consider what you are writing? Or are you
simply just going with projection of how you believe people are supposed
to behave, in order to fit the false narrative you have constructed
about somebody's intent of expression?
now, that may actually be true, but if it is, and you hsve evidence to bsck it
up, then as a newcomer you have to be *really* careful about how you go about
presenting that.
I am not that much of a newcomer to this list. And that's part of the
reason I feel entitled to be able to express global disappointment with
the list as a whole as a non-outsider. Plus, if the idea is that
newcomers should somehow expect to be offered less respect even when
formulating true statements, I have to worry about the kind of technical
list this is supposed to be.
Shouldn't what we care about here be facts first and foremost?
what may surprise you is that it *actually doesn't matter* whether what you suggest as an
alternative to the "shit" is good or not: it's the very fact that you
*expected* them to do it [without offering any financial compensation or other reward or
incentive, which would result in a contractual or moral obligation where both parties
satisfactorily get what they want]
At this stage, I'm gonna pass on this as well as the rest of your
nonsensical advice and assessment of what the core of the issue is.
Treat that as lack of empathy if you wish, but, whether you understand
it or not, and as one of its member of it, I have been trying to make
this list better.
And even if I perceive that you genuinely believe that you are trying to
accomplish the same, by "teaching" me some etiquette (while of course
not passing a chance to use as much as this pointless exchange to try to
boost your public mentor image somehow), I do hope that you will come to
realize, on your own, that public prolonged personal attacks on a
technical mailing list isn't the right way to go about it, even if you
truly believe that you have the high ground and that everybody else on
the list is somehow agreeing with you.
Regards,
/Pete
