On 1/13/16, 4:37 PM, "Stanislav Malyshev" <smalys...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Hi! > >> Yes we can! >> >> Let's say *we* would improve our conduct. I mean *we* as literally you >> and me: two individuals. As a result the conduct of "whole of internals >> as a group" would improve a bit. If improving our own individual conduct > >Not by definition given by John - he said that "behavior of the group" >is not behavior of any individual, but something different (still have >no idea what exactly). > >But fine, I'll buy it anyway. Let's improve our conduct, you and me. >How? What you want to happen, can you describe specific action that has >to be taken and specific result you expect to come from that action? > >I mean, I read your email, I read several John's emails, and still I >have no answer on that simple question. Not "let's do lots of things so >that everything would be awesome", but some specific things. Right now I can call out your last paragraph. But before I do, remember John's point about perception versus reality. I go further. With respect to what goes down on a list-serv, there is only perception and nothing else matters. The following characterizations may seem wrong to you but if you really want some specific things, here we go... 1. I don't remember you asking me "that simple question". I could be wrong. But unless you did, "and still have no answer" is an accusation of me and/or John of being delinquent in answering it. 2. Yours is not a "simple question" at all, except in the trivial sense that it requires few words to ask and sounds simple. It's a very complex question which, if I am to answer it carefully, will take a lot of time. 3. Together 1. and 2. mean, indirectly, "Tom and John can't answer this simple question and they are incoherent." 4. "let's do lots of things so that everything would be awesome" is a misrepresentation. I shouldn't need to compare the content of my previous email with this characterization to make it clear. I'm confident you're smart enough to see the difference. 5. The same quoted phrase is just insulting enough to provoke me (and perhaps John, idk) into an emotional response. 6. The same quoted phrase communicates to the group that we are silly people asking for pie-in-the-sky things that cannot possibly work. On the surface you appear to ask for specific suggestions of how to communicate differently/better. Supposing this is your sincere and only purpose with that paragraph, here's an answer: I suggest you avoid inflammatory implications and subtexts (such as 1. thru 6.) and instead ask the question straight. For example: "I mean, would you give some specific examples of things that you or me or maybe others could have said differently?" However, I am not sure this was your purpose. 1. thru 6. also suggest your purpose was to gain the upper hand by ridiculing me and denigrating the content of my previous email, and to shut down this conversation. I have some doubt that this is the whole story, hence I took the time to answer the surface question. If you want more examples, I can go through old emails, critique them and give suggestions but I'll have to do it at my normal hourly rate :p Obviously, I am not the one to be teaching this stuff. There are specialists and textbooks that deal with difficult kinds of human communications. The example above is only to demonstrate that improvements are within easy reach. And because you asked, or maybe asked ;) Tom -- PHP Internals - PHP Runtime Development Mailing List To unsubscribe, visit: http://www.php.net/unsub.php
