On Sat, Jan 9, 2016 at 11:21 AM, Paul M. Jones <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jan 9, 2016, at 09:43, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 9, 2016 10:16 PM, "Paul M. Jones" <pmjone...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 8, 2016, at 23:25, Pierre Joye <pierre....@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > Paul's early reply in this thread were over aggressive > > > > > > You are wrong. At best, it is "your opinion" only. > > > > I am not wrong nor right. You were aggressive. And it is not only me > saying. that if you check this thread. > > I've checked it and I don't see the "aggressive" you are talking about. > Can you be more precise? Quoting my actual sentences would be good. Within the framework of the alternative PHP Contributor Etiquette <http://cerebriform.blogspot.com/2016/01/php-contributor-etiquette.html>, a moderator would jump in about now. The email would go something like this: --- BEGIN --- Hey Pierre and Paul, I hear what both you guys are saying. You're both making good points. I think, though, how the words are presented is causing some miscommunication. Pierre, when you say "Paul's reply [was] over aggressive", you're presenting an opinion word as a logical truth. Instead, consider phrasing like "I felt Paul's reply was over aggressive". That phrasing signals you're expressing a valid, true feeling you have rather than labeling the reply. Paul, when you say "You are wrong", you signal you've heard Pierre, but reject his statement. As the statement is a valid and true feeling Pierre presents, that is tantamount to rejecting Pierre as a person rather than refuting his argument. Instead, consider phrasing like. "I'm hearing you say my tone was aggressive. I mean to convey my passion, not attack anyone personally." Pierre, consider that the word "aggressive" connotes unprovoked or militant attacks: maybe "fiery" or "impassioned" might also fit. Paul, consider that "fascist" might be interpreted personally by those whose families lived under fascist rule. Perhaps "authoritarian" or "imperious" might also fit. What do you think? Feel free to write back, or chat further on Skype or IRC --- END --- The idea is direct, straightforward mediation: listen, validate, guide, and remain open. Cheers, bishop
