On 07/03/2013 03:21 AM, Antoon Pardon wrote: > Op 03-07-13 02:30, ru...@yahoo.com schreef: >> If your going to point out something negative about someone >> then do so politely. Ask yourself if you were pointing out >> incompetence to your boss (or anyone else where impoliteness >> could have real consequences for you) if you would say, >> "you're incompetent." > > And so we shift from no problem speaking bluntly or clearly > to wording it in a way that wouldn't antagonize your boss > too much.
As I pointed out, emotionally-loaded, judgmental language *is not* clear. And yes, I think "wouldn't antagonize your boss" is not a bad heuristic for judging the politeness of your response. You shouldn't be asking for respect from other posters here if you're not willing to provide the same respect IMO. But even if you reject that there is the fundamental nature of people: that if you disrespect others they are likely to respond in kind and (IMO) most people here find the resulting climate unpleasant. You can't do much about trolls who occasionally show up and disrespect you but you can promote a climate of respect by not responding in kind. > Off course that would also mean throwing out remarks like: > > ] You have betrayed the trust of all your customers. > > Which seemed to be accepted on this list without a problem. There are many things "accepted on this list" that are questionable. Again I ask, what does his web site admin skills or lack thereof have to do with python? If you want to decline providing Python help to someone because you don't like some real-world behavior of the person, fine. But when you attack him over it, and publicly engage in a long, noisy discussion here in which you trumpet your moral and technical superiority, then you should not be surprised when the target takes offense and responds in kind. If someone from Wikileaks posts here seeking Python help, should we engage in a long discussion about the morality of Wikileaks and how they aid US fugitives from justice? How about someone who lets slip he's just been released from prison for child sexual abuse? How about someone who's writing software for bulk mailing? How about someone who is writing membership management software for the American Nazi Party? >> Please use non-emotional, neutral, factual descriptions >> and only do so when it is actually relevant. IOW, please >> resist your desire to "tell off" the poster -- it usually >> just produces more responses in kind. > > This is often not workable. Limiting to factual description > means that you often can't summarize a list of such factual > descriptions into a conclusion. You can list 8 examples of > someone betraying the trust of his customers but you can't > summarize it into: "is/behaves untrustworthy to his customers," > even if all signs point to this person going to continue in the > same vein. > > It is limiting yourself into pointing out all the trees > without being allowed to call it a forest. You can summarize while being polite and non-judgmental. You do not have state your belief on every off-topic inflammatory subject that happens to come up. And if you don't want to help someone because of something you don't like about them, you don't have to. But you also don't have to tell all of us why we should agree with you or try to publicly bully into not helping those who don't share your opinion. -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
