Gymnastics

[Janice Caron]

On 12/03/2008, Kris <foo at bar.com> wrote:
> "Janice Caron" <caron800 at googlemail.com> wrote
>  > if there is anything specific you want me /not/
>  > to say, please tell me that too, and I'll not say it.
>
>  I'd intended to forego further posts on this topic, but you are asking for a
>  response. Pardon the delay, and I'll try to be appropriately objective:
>
>  I will stick purely to the content related to this exchange. Please do not
>  read any more into it than merely an illustration. In that vein, I'm going
>  to use the same 'opinion' of yours as before and attempt to paint an
>  alternate viewpoint for you. Here it is:
>  ------
>  Module names in mixed case!? Did the Tango folk not read the D style
>  guide where it says "Module and package names are all lower case, and
>  only contain the characters [a..z][0..9][_]", or did they just
>  purposefully decide to avoid it? If the former, that was amateurish;
>  if the latter, it was petty.
>  ------
>
>  you've
>  effectively asked me what you might do, or not do, in order to avoid opening
>  yourself up to criticism

Yes, I have. That is exactly what I am asking. Thank you for trying to answer.


>  1) Your message is making strong assertions about the intent and
>  capabilities of the targeted individuals. Think, for a moment, about how
>  you'd react if the tables were turned?

OK, well ignoring for the moment the fact that no insult was
/intended/, I do fully accept that offense was /taken/.

However, it's hard to know how I can "stop" having made a post in the
past, when I have already apologised for it many times. After all, in
the exact same post, a little bit further down, I said: "My apologies
if I come across as contentious."

The following day, on September 16th 2007, I apologised again, twice,
in two separate posts. I quote: 'I am truly sorry that use of the word
"petty" offended you. If it
helps ease tensions, then I apologise for using it.', and again: "So I
apologise if my first impression offended you".

I have also said many rather nice things about Tango. For example, two
days later, on September 18th 2007: "I'm also capable of just speaking
in words, and saying what I think, which is that Tango is a truly
excellent body of work with some fantastic code in it." Also, on the
same day: "So yes, the core body of code in Tango is excellent. The
engine that does all the work is a fantastic bit of software, and not
in the least bit amateurish.", as well as the further clarification:
"I think it's more that words were /taken/ personally when they were
not intended as such. I know that I have never criticised any
individual, and never would."

Without a time-machine, I cannot un-make the post, so all can do is
keep apologising, and I haven't apologised enough alreadly, allow me
to do so again: I apologise.

But the point I'm making here is that since that post was made on
September 15th 2007, then I "stopped" making it on September 16th. I
cannot "stop" making it today or tomorrow any more than I can "stop"
making it yesterday. Since I have not made any negative comments about
Tango or its developers since September 16th 2007 (nor insulted any
individual /ever/), can we not just agree that such posts have
already, in fact, "stopped", and that it is therefore not possible for
me to stop any further?


>  Along the way, you've
>  characterized that act as "malicious", as a "vendetta", a "strawman", and an
>  "attack".

Yes, the one thing which really bothers me is misrepresentation. All
the rest, I can ignore, but misrepresentation is something that I do
perceive as an attack, even if you don't intend it as such.

It's just, if ever anyone says "Janice says X" or "Janice thinks Y" or
"Janice believes Z", where I do not, in fact, say/think/believe X, Y,
or Z, or makes any statement which gives the imprerssion that I
believe something other than that which I actually believe, then I
feel compelled to step in and say "Wait a minute - that part's not
actually true". It's not my intention to exacerbate any dispute, but I
just cannot stand by and let someone else put words or opinions into
my mouth.

Honestly, if someone wants to know what I think, they only have to ask me.



> Just what do you call your above "amatuerish" message?

Again, we're revisiting September, and a post (a) which was
misunderstood, and (b) for which I have apologised many times. On
September 18th, I asked you to "Consider the possibility that you may
have misunderstood". If you did consider that, you obviously decided
to disregard the possibility.

The context of the word "amateurish" was within the proposition: *IF*
the developers had not read the D style guide *THEN* that would have
been amateurish. Since we have now established that you guys did read
the style-guide, then clearly I didn't call you amateurish.

Now, granted, I did say "petty". That, I admit. But even there, you're
misreading the context. At the time, I was a newbie in this group. I
didn't know you (or anyone), and I was only talking about a first
impression. I'm really, really sorry that my first impression of Tango
offended you, but if I were in your shoes, I'd be thinking "Hmm... why
does Tango give people that first impression?", and perhaps giving
some thought to presentation, rather than hammering newbies, and then
holding the post against them forever. And for the record: I
apologise. Again.


>  You do realize, I hope, that
>  ... perhaps some of your posts warrant
>  moderation also?

Yes, of course. I don't have any problem with that whatsoever! I never
intend to offend, but if, on occasion, my words might be taken the
wrong way then /of course/ they should be moderated. Same with anyone
else.

So, are we good now?

I mean, I want to be able to say things like "It's not in my nature to
speculate without evidence" without being criticised. Can I do that
now? I ask because I believe that to be true, even if you don't, so I
really don't see why I shouldn't be allowed to say that. Sure - there
may have been occasions when I haven't lived up to my own standards -
that's just being human - but I still have those standards. I /am/ a
skeptic, and I feel I should be allowed to say that. So ... is that OK
with you now? May I proceed to post in peace? And can we, at long
last, put the post that upset you behind us?