On Thu, Nov 21, 2002 at 09:58:26AM -0700, Jason E. Stewart wrote: > If I hadn't seen you in action for 3 years I probably would have done > exactly the same thing.
I cannot tell if this is a compliment or an insult; you're going to have to spell it out for me, I guess. :) > > The best solution is really quite simple; give credit where credit is > > due. But as I said, I personally don't *want* credit until you've > > credited everyone else. > > Jesus did his best to help people and you publicly eviscerated him for > being a plagerizing thief. How is this supposed to be helpful? I did not "eviscerate" him, even metaphorically, and I did not accuse him of theft. I accused him of plagiarism, but clearly expressed my intent to do nothing about it aside from bring it to his attention. I reasoned that pointing out his error would be sufficient to prompt him to rectify it, as I expected that he was an ethical person. Instead, his reaction has been to remove the entire work. Perhaps he feels that it is better that the world do without, than to take a few minutes to credit his sources. But I don't really know -- it is difficult to speculate. > If you want to educate people, you can be constructive or you can spit > in their face and call them names. What name have I called Sr. Climent? > You chose the latter, No, I did not. Illustrate to me how I did. > and Jesus feels like he got shit on for trying to help. I cannot be held solely responsible for his feelings. My messages were polite but firm. I also made it perfectly clear that I would not be taking any retributive or vengeful action whatsoever. He has nothing to fear from me. He was doing a good thing, but it was undermined through his discourtesy of not explicitly crediting sources and asserting exclusive copyright over the result. If he hadn't done the latter the former wouldn't have bothered me nearly as much. > > The principle I am defending is more important. > > Prinicples are an important thing, but so is attitude and behavior. Indeed, which is why I did not personally insult Sr. Climent in any way. > How about next time you ask nicely first and give people a chance to > correct their errors? Ask nicely first before doing what? The same nothing I already told him I was going to do? I expressed my disappointment in his failure to credit any of his sources. It was, and is, his choice to keep his site down, or rectify the problem. There is no permanent damage here that is not under Sr. Climent's complete control. He knows what sources he used in the construction of his site, and even provided hyperlinks to most of them. Where he erred was in an inaccurate statement of copyright that failed to credit any of the contributors to his document. > Instead assuming that people are willfully stealing your ideas? I don't see how he could plausibly argue that he was unaware of my site given that it was the first one on his list. That he found it useful was flattering. That he asserted copyright over it (by implication) wasn't. > Then if they don't care you flame-on all you want. I have not been, and likely will not be, flaming him at all. I have not asked for an admission of error or for an apology, just for the problem to be fixed. > I just hope for our sake that your flame-first attitude hasn't cost > the debian-powerpc community another civic minded individual. I hope for your sake that you learn to distinguish between flames and messages that have anything but ebulliently positive content. When one is composing a message to correct the discourteous behavior of another, whether inadvertent or not, it is difficult to achieve the latter. Out of curiosity, do you regard *this* message as a flame? -- G. Branden Robinson | A fundamentalist is someone who Debian GNU/Linux | hates sin more than he loves [EMAIL PROTECTED] | virtue. http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | -- John H. Schaar
pgp54NU4YsW3B.pgp
Description: PGP signature
