bad behaviour and manipulation

[David B. Held]

John Reimer wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Mar 2007 20:17:42 -0800, David B. Held wrote:
> 
> [...]
> Fighting?  No.  Clarification? Yes. 

"Clarification"?  That's your excuse for continuing a flame war well 
past it's shelf life?  I'm not sure how much "clarification" you feel 
you will need to give before you've made your point, but it seems most 
likely that will happen when you get "the last word".

> [...]
> Really... A lot of languages inherit from Latin to some degree or another
> :P ; I'm not impressed with that excuse since I have conversed with many
> English-speaking Europeans throughout the last few years in this D
> group (Larsivi, Tom S., and Frank B. Hello! :) ).

How many of them speak Latin?

> Incidently, I have no way of knowing whether what you say is true about
> Romanian being THAT similar to Latin; even dialects of languages can be
> so /disimilar/ as to be unintelligible amongst each other).

Really?  You have no way of knowing?  You mean to tell me it is 
impossible for you to do research and draw a reasonable conclusion from 
the entire body of information available at your fingertips?  Either you 
are being disingenuous to make a rather strained point, or you need to 
visit www.wikipedia.com, my friend.  If you want to be pedantic, we can 
easily magnify the length of this thread by many orders of magnitude. 
But it certainly weakens your point about not simply wanting "the last 
word."

> [...]
> Of course "differing backgrounds can breed misunderstandings."  Please,
> please don't use this excuse for Andrei.  I DO NOT KNOW Andrei, that
> is true. But my prior posts point out the manner in which he treats
> certain people here or his manner in pursuing argument seems ill-
> motivated for several reasons which I've discussed.

I specifically started out by not taking sides.  But when you made it 
clear that there was entirely not enough mud in the air, I felt some 
balance was called for.  I'm not making excuses for anyone.  *I* am the 
one making "clarifications".  Since you want to do more than "clear the 
air", do you leave anyone any choice but to oblige?

> A person that is  picking out spelling and grammar errors in native-
> English speakers sentences is NOT struggling with the language (or maybe
> it's just gleeful practice for a non-English speaker? Is that the next
> excuse? I've never heard of such a thing!). The fact that he can spend
> time writing voluminous posts tells me that he is NOT struggling with
> the language (especially if he is as busy a person as I imagine he is!).

I can pick out misspellings in French and Spanish, but I couldn't order 
myself a cheeseburger in either language.  Being able to spell is a 
pretty poor indicator of linguistic facility, but that isn't really the 
point, is it?  But since you like to wander off on pointless threads, 
let's follow them through to their conclusion.  Disagreements and 
misperceptions in language do not arise from trivial cases of 
misspelling or common usage.  Those are the things you can be fairly 
sure will not be "lost in translation".  Where there is a possibility 
for misunderstanding is exactly in less frequently used words that may 
have a different context in one speaker than another, even within the 
same language.  There are lots of Indians where I work, and even though 
they speak English just like me, I guarantee you there are some phrases 
that mean slightly different things to them than they do to me.  The 
fact that I have to spell this out for you seems rather puzzling given 
all the experience you claim to have talking to people from different 
languages and cultures.

> I've seen others struggle with cultural and language differences, and I
> assure you that it becomes clear when that is the problem.

I never said Andrei had trouble speaking English.  In fact, I said 
exactly the opposite.  The problem is that English is a natural 
language, not a machine language, which means that the imprecision of 
the language lends itself to misunderstanding.  To be quite honest, 
there have been many times in my life where I have offended people 
unwittingly because I said things in a manner that seemed perfectly 
civilized to me, but were, in fact, considered impolite to my listeners. 
  Since I have spoken English for basically all my life, it seems even 
more likely that this could happen to someone who has had to learn it as 
a second language.  If it has never happened to you, then I am very 
happy for you and applaud your communication and interpersonal skills. 
But for some reason, it seems that programmers tend to be slightly more 
autistic than the general population, because other friends who are 
programmers are also more likely to be misconstrued.

> In this situation, you are making it worse by trying to defend him
> this way.  Incidentally, I too suffer from a loss for English words
> while I write... often! :P

I don't think Andrei needs any defense.  And if he did, he is more than 
capable of providing it himself.  On the contrary, I wrote my post in 
response to *you*.  Whether I have irked you by presenting *facts* in no 
way affects the state of Andrei's "defense".

> [...]
> *sigh*. Yes, it is possible to have "innocent" misunderstandings.  This
> is not the case here.  Which is the wrong side?  Which is the right side? 

Who is to say there is a wrong or right side?  What if that's a false 
dichotomy?  Unless you can make your case for "rightness" and 
"wrongness", how can you possibly determine what is and is not "the case 
here"?  That seems rather presumputous to me.

> [...]
> But to say somebody is rarely wrong... man... I can't argue with that :P.
> "Wrong" is not always about technical merit; we're talking about being
> fair and unfair here. That's what I'm getting at.

I was talking about technical merit.  But if you're talking about 
fairness, then we have gotten to the root of the issue, haven't we?  And 
who are you to decide what is fair and not fair?  Are you the Fairness 
Fairy?  Do you sprinkle judgments of fairness upon us in your infinite 
benevolence?  Isn't "fairness" ultimately about perspective and values? 
  Some people call them "freedom fighters", others call them 
"terrorists".  Which moniker is "fair"?  You style yourself the cultural 
czar, determining the norms for this little "society", and dictating 
your decrees from on high, but by what authority?  You've picked your 
"side" and drawn your line in the sand, and you won't back down until 
you're the last man standing.  This isn't about "fairness" at all, 
because that's just a silly concept that tries to put a stamp of 
validity on a parochial set of norms.

What you mean to say is that you feel Andrei broke some rules of 
civility.  And maybe he did or maybe he didn't.  Maybe he was rude, or 
maybe he was honest.  But "rules of civility" are a bit squishy and 
nebulous, are they not?  If you've never been in a social circle where 
you felt out of place because the other people had different norms then 
you, then I suggest you try getting out of the house a bit more.  Where 
I come from, what some people consider to be "polite conversation" would 
be considered extremely rude by other people, and vice versa.  The idea 
that you are the Sole Keeper of Civility is just an egocentrical take on 
the world.

> [...]
> Glad to hear that he can admit a mistake.  Don't you think he had a
> motivation to fix it and then to publicise the fix in a column?

Well, if nobody can do something honest without you second-guessing it, 
then you've essentially exposed your hand--you cannot be convinced.  You 
have tried to position yourself as the "voice of reason", but it's 
obvious that there is actually no way to reason with you.

> Why wouldn't he want to fix a library that might be so evident to the
> public eye? Do you think the library users like "busted" code? ;)

Frankly, most of them hadn't thought about it enough to speak up.  And 
it could have remained that way for an indefinite amount of time.  It 
requires a commitment to quality to do the right thing even if you can 
get away with being lazy.  But to understand that in the context of my 
example, you'd have to actually look at the history of the library in 
question and see the actual issues involved.  It's much easier to just 
ask leading questions and absolve yourself of culpability in 
perpetuating a de facto flame war by terminating every line with a 
smiley, isn't it? ;)

> Now, I am NOT questioning his character here. I am merely pointing
> out that this example really doesn't prove anything, nor should it,
> nor does it have to. 

Actually, it proves that the notion that Andrei never admits to being 
wrong is a mistake.  I'm fully convinced that had you been the author of 
the library, and had I shown you the mistake, I would have received a 
300 line post explaining why I'm wrong, in a combative and condescending 
tone with smileys at the end of every third line.  So, nice try, but 
point *not* taken.

> We read Andrei by how he presents himself here, limited view or not.
> I'm satisfied that you are a loyal friend of his and can see a lot of
> good in him;

I'm not a particularly loyal friend, or I would have taken sides and 
stepped in a lot sooner.  Also note that at no time have I actually 
said: "Andrei is innocent of all wrongdoing".  In this thread, I think 
the notion of picking sides and drawing lines and firing volleys is a 
big, entertaining waste of time.  You're very lucky that I'm entertained 
by this sort of argument.  It brings me back to the days of my youth, 
when winning a flame war at all costs brings that rush of satisfaction 
in a job well done.  Fortunately, Google has forgotten about most of the 
foolishness of my youth, but I haven't.

> I'm sad that we don't get to see that aspect of him in the same way,
> except through your eyes alone. For his and your sake, though, I'll
> endeavor to think of him more favourably.

You are *SUCH* a dear!!  Please, sir, can I have some more?  The 
sincerity in your voice warms my heart...a single tear rolls down my 
grateful cheek.  Yes, there *is* hope and love left in the world!!

> But never do excuses like above remove an individuals responsibility.

Oh, no...we all need responsibility...responsibility and discipline. 
And discipline comes at the end of a wooden paddle.  I think giving 
Andrei 10 spankings and a 30 minute timeout in the corner will make 
everything better; don't you agree?

> We must all take responsibility for the actions we take.

Yes, like not knowing when to let a thread die.  You are like the last 
soldier in a war that just doesn't know what to do with peace, and so 
has to throw a hand grenade in the peace treaty signing ceremony.

> Incidentally, I never suggested that he hated Tango; I have not the
> slightest clue what he thinks about Tango, nor is it relevant or important;
> that's not an issue here. I DID question his motivations and intentions
> for influencing Tango directions because of the manner in which he
> presented his case. That is important.

Right.  It doesn't matter whether Tango is a technical marvel or an 
utter disaster.  It doesn't matter whether improvements to Tango have 
technical merit or not.  The only thing that matters is *the matter in 
which you present your case*.  Wow.  It's like the US Patent Office.  If 
I present the plans for an anti-gravity machine to your committee in a 
humble and ingratiating way, do you think there is any possibility I 
could get it added to your library?

> Nor did I ever make out that Tango is PERFECT. You don't appear to have
> any idea at how receptive the Tango developers have been to /solid/
> outside input.

Where "solid" means: "presented fully prostrated before the Lords of 
Tango in a most humble and submissive manner."  Guess what?  Your 
anecdotes have as much weight as mine.  See how nasty it is when you 
don't play by the rules?  Everything falls apart, which is why these 
games are so pointless.  But I guess you have to play them a *lot* to 
figure that out.

> Have you been paying attention to the amount of discussion going on
> about Tango? Have a look at the forums and other threads here. There are
> plenty of constructive contributions, and Andrei is welcome to continue
> contributing those ideas like everyone else.

Don't try to make excuses for the Tango developers!  We all know they 
are Starbucks-drinking Communists!!  I'm glad to see they have such a 
loyal friend in you.  I just regret that we are only able to look upon 
them so favorably through your rose-colored glasses.  Like how that 
playes out?  Pretty fun, huh?

> A ticket system and wiki page are all available for this sort of thing.
> And Andrei would show common courtesy to use these systems if he is
> interested in helping the effort in the direction he deems as "right".

You've never owned a company or had a customer, have you?  It's pretty 
clear you haven't, because when a customer tells you something is wrong 
with your product, you don't tell them: "Oh, you didn't call the 1-800 
number.  Even though you are talking to me right now, I need you to hang 
up and call the 1-800 number.  That's the way we provide support, sir. 
Thank you for your time, but if you really wanted support that was 
'right', you'd understand."

> Is that kind of common courtesy considered "culturally" significant? Is
> it difficult for him to understand? If so, I guess the suggestions to
> that effect on several occasions didn't help him comprehend that point;
> I am not sure how to surmount that cultural hurdle.

Where I work, we have a ticketing system.  And when someone comes to me 
and says: "Hey, your stuff is broken", I have two options...1) I can fix 
it, or 2) I can tell them: "Oh, you just need to file a ticket".  Take a 
number, sit down, and shut up.  I actually did have customers for many 
years, and because I was paid directly by my customers, I learned very 
quickly that no customer wants to file a ticket.  Nor can you expect the 
customer to understand when you tell them that they did not receive a 
timely response because they didn't ask for support in the rigid manner 
in which you provide it.  For this reason, I never tell a user to file a 
ticket.  If a ticket needs to be filed, I file it.  You wanna know why?

I shouldn't have to spell it out, but you seem to have missed the point 
many times already, so I'll do it in big letters: TELLING SOMEONE TO 
FILE A TICKET IS CONSIDERED RUDE AND DISMISSIVE.  In particular, filing 
a ticket is a sure guarantee that your problem won't be looked at in a 
timely manner.  It's obvious you've never been on the receiving end of 
such a system, which is why I'm going to all the trouble of relating 
this experience to you.

>> Needless to say, Andrei has no problem with admitting he's wrong.  It 
>> just happens to be a rare event.
> 
> Glad to hear it.  Wish I could see it happen.  It seems the problem must
> exist only in this community then.

Ahh...and now we get to the crux of the matter..."Wish I could see it 
happen."  That's really all you want, isn't it?  You not only want an 
apology, you want an admission of guilt.  You're out for blood, and this 
is the only thing that will satisfy you.  I know the feeling.  When I've 
been "wronged", I feel the same way.  We all do.  But I do believe I 
spelled out this effect pretty clearly in my first post on this topic. 
Funny how all the denunciations and "clarifications" still boil down to 
the truth.  The problem with writing 300-line posts is that you give 
yourself enough rope to hang yourself with.

> [...]
> Pride. It's always just that simple, isn't it?  Nobody every has a valid
> concern apart from it?  Yes, pride often plays a big role in our lives,
> but I assure you this confrontation is about flagging a very unusual
> critique approach that is not helping an effort. I don't need an apology,
> never asked for one, and am only frustrated to see how posts like this
> appear to manipulate the problem into something else.

Speaking of manipulation...actually, it really *is* about pride.  You 
feel the Tango developers offered a reasonable avenue for presenting 
problems, and when somebody didn't follow the masterfully constructed 
channels of communication, you threw a temper tantrum.  Manipulation is 
posturing yourself to be some kind of Hero of the Newsgroup making sure 
that everyone follows your Code of Conduct and Plays by the Rules. 
Sometimes people just get on your nerves.  The things they say and the 
way they say them grate on you.  It's true of everyone on the planet. 
That doesn't always make the speaker a Scoundrel-with-a-capital-S. 
Often times, the problem lay equally with the speaker and the listener, 
because at the end of the day, language is a social contract about the 
meanings of words and sentences; and when a speaker and listener 
disagree on the meanings (connotation is just as much a part of meaning 
as denotation), there is a breakdown in the social contract.  Since the 
contract is not dictated from On High, it is a peer contract and 
breaches are the responsibility of all the peers involved.

> D has gone through much more severe "schisms" before, so please don't
> try to threaten me that way.

What if I threaten you with a TeleTubby?  Will that make you shape up?

> It will stand up to this, don't worry.  You, no doubt, know that I've
> weathered many prior incidents here, right?

It's obvious you have weathered *many* prior "incidents" in *many* 
places.  In fact, I would go so far as to say that you "thrive" on them.

> If we limit this all to misunderstandings and perspectives, there will
> never be any complete resolution. That's the way people want it, and
> perhaps that's the way they'll get it.

Right.  There was a definite wrong here, and we have not finished 
assembling the posse for the final lynching.  You know, I don't watch 
much t.v., but one of my favorite shows is Battlestar Galactica.  It's 
really a very fine piece of television drama.  This show features an 
anti-hero named Gaius Baltar.  It's ambiguous as to whether he was the 
traitor to or saviour of the human race, but a good number of people 
hate him for quite a few things he did, especially as President of the 
Colonies.  While the remainder of the human race was under occupation by 
the evil Cylons, he had to make some pretty unsavory decisions.  You can 
easily understand why most humans left alive would like to see him 
flushed out an airlock.  So at his trial, the surprise defense was Lee 
Adama, son of the Admiral and one of the most respected pilots in the fleet.

Lee gave a hard-hitting speech about how Baltar was weak and 
contemptible, but that everyone in power, from the current President to 
the Admiral to himself to many others, had performed equally cowardly 
and contemptible actions.  At the end, he made it clear that Baltar 
should be pardoned not because he had done nothing wrong, but that 
everyone else had done regrettable things and were pardoned for it.  And 
to convict him now would be the pinnacle of hypocrisy.  There's no clean 
mapping from Battlestar Galactica to reality, but as you tie that 
hangman's knot and don your executioner's pillowcase, consider whether 
there might be a speck, a mote, perhaps even a plank, clouding your vision.

> All of your message was written to vindicate Andrei from all "allegations".

Yup.  Because Andrei is such a pathetic creature that I needed to come 
to his rescue.  I am The Vindicator!  Hear me roar!  RAWR!!!!

> Why? There was no need.  I made it clear on several occasions that I do
> not know Andrei.  All I know is what I read in his threads, and I gave
> a clear indicator to him that his manner of dealing with some issues and
> people are making him look bad and should be changed.

Boy, you told him but good!  Why, if he don't listen, when pa come home, 
he'll take out the belt!  Lassie!!!  Laaaaaassie!!!

> He should never have taken it personally from a person who knows nothing
> more about Andrei than what he presents about himself in this community.

You're a complete @$$hole.  Now, I know how that sounds, but you really 
shouldn't take it personally from a person who knows nothing more about 
you than what you present about yourself in this community.

> I was somewhat surprised to see his reaction: very simple logic
> indicates that my view was limited to his online persona. 

Very simple logic indeed.  Why, anyone who could possibly be offended by 
anything you say must be an absolute Simpleton!  With a capital S!  I 
can't imagine how *anyone* could react to your "limited views".

> Mine was a critique of that alone. His decision to take my assessments
> as dreadful attacks on his hidden character were ill-founded, and
> actually made me wonder more that I must have touched some nerve of
> truth; the other alternative was to presume that he was not
> really personally offended and had posted his response like so just to
> manipulate the situation more.  Either way, it didn't look good.

No, it did not.  But it's a good thing that you taught him a lesson, 
right?  Boy are we glad the sherriff is back in town!  It's safe for 
law-abidin folk to walk the streets again!  Yee-hah!  Oh, by the way, 
your online persona makes you look like a pretentious, self-righteous 
blowhard, but don't take that as a dreadful attack on your hidden 
character, or I might wonder if I've touched a "nerve of truth" (or was 
it just your Funny Bone of Truth?).  Anyway, you wouldn't want to 
respond to my limited view because it wouldn't look good.

> Perhaps this situation should just be disregarded as another example
> of cultural differences? That's sad logic indeed.

It's pretty clear that what is the "norm" in your "culture" is far from 
universal.  How do I know?  Well, I don't see any waves of affirmation 
backing your posts.  I'd call that a "cultural difference."

> I've had enough of this.

Really?  That's too bad, because I'm just getting warmed up.

> "Last word" is not the intention and matter's little.

It matters 300 lines little, as a matter of fact.  And if I had to 
guess, "little" will increase by a good several hundred lines on the 
next iteration.  BTW, you used the apostrophe inappropriately. ;)

> I only wish that all this gets cleared up soon.

Yes, it would have been nice if it had gotten cleared up two or three 
posts ago.  I wonder why that didn't happen...Hmm...

> Andrei is welcome to his opinion as always,

...as long as it's presented in a way that you find appropriate...

> and I hope he's as resilient as the many others in the D community
> have proved to be.

...except for the ones who have a compulsive need to get "the last word".

> All the best,

No, All the Best to YOU!!! ;)))

Dave