bad behaviour and manipulation

[Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email)]

kris wrote:
> Andrei Alexandrescu (See Website For Email) wrote:
>> John Reimer wrote:
> [snip]
> 
>>> Andrei does come across as having an agenda.  I can accept that given 
>>> his
>>> position in the influence of D; but it's becoming very hard to separate
>>> truth from perspective in all these posts.  Why is it wrong to state 
>>> that
>>> Andrei has an agenda?  He does, doesn't he?  Are we all afraid to 
>>> admit it?
>>> I just don't think he's going about it very honestly. If he were trully
>>> seeking to be helpful to Tango design ideas, he would be contributing 
>>> over
>>> in the Tango forums... Since he doesn't do that, it's quite easy to see
>>> why one might think he has an agenda... and not in Tango's favour.
>>>
>>> Andrei does tend to push his preferences on the community. That
>>> deserves to be balanced.  Kris, Sean, and others have been doing 
>>> their best
>>> to be clear and fair in regards to addressing Tango "propaganda"; if
>>> Andrei makes allegations about Tango, they are obligated to
>>> either defend design decisions or accept recommendations as feasible and
>>> beneficial.  I think they've been doing a very good job of both given 
>>> the
>>> circumstances.  Are people not noticing this?
>>> I don't recall ever seeing Andrei admit he is wrong without some
>>> equivication or deflection. If he does, it's often hidden in some sorty
>>> joke or distraction. He's just not a straight forward person, plain and
>>> simple.  Either that or he has trouble with humility.
>>>
>>> He's got oodles of creativity, good ideas, experience... and personal
>>> opinions (like many here) and maybe even a little bit of academic 
>>> rigour to
>>> back him up :). He makes tons of :O) faces. But these matter little, 
>>> if he
>>> serves his own preferences, his own interests, and his own agenda.  
>>> Maybe
>>> I got him wrong, but from what I've seen, I doubt it.
>>
>>
>> The only civilized response I can imagine to this is killfiling 
>> sender's address. It's understandable for anyone to get heated and 
>> make a few ad hominem arguments in the midst of a heated argument. But 
>> to actually sit down and build an entire web of assumptions leading to 
>> sweeping personality judgments, that's just shady. 
> 
> This "shady" claim is surely an outrageous manipulation coming from 
> someone who has recently exhibited the attributes of a troll?
> 
> JJR is one of the finest and fairest people who hang around here; he's 
> known to be a humble and caring individual, with a certain distaste for 
> confrontation.
> 
> For him to write what he did indicates a level of discontent beyond the 
> pale, and it seems evident that this "web of assumptions" you lay at his 
> feet is something instigated and shaped by your own hand.
> 
> 
> 
>> Put yourself for a minute at the receiving end of such calumny and 
>> you'll understand why you ought to be ashamed of yourself.
> 
> Then please consider your own behaviour, and the "receiving end" of 
> those upon whom you have poured scorn? From the time you had a go at Tom 
> through to this point, it is my opinion that you have at various times 
> exhibited the attributes of a bigot, a bully, a megalomaniac and a 
> troll. There will be others who share this view, and those who don't: 
> the only thing that matters right here, given the history, is your 
> audacity to "play to the gallery" as some /injured/ party.
> 
> If there's anyone who should be ashamed, it is yourself Andrei. You've 
> been wholly effective at frittering away the wealth of respect you had 
> commanded (from me at least), through the kind of behaviour that John 
> described and Roberto *nailed* with his comment about your "trolling".
> 
> I'm no angel, yet I'll willingly shoulder responsibility for my actions 
> and retract or apologize sincerely where I've made a mistake. On the 
> other hand, I've yet to see a case (as John noted) where you've shown 
> any remorse or real corrective action for anything questionable you've 
> been party to. In truth, I've seen you ardently follow a course in the 
> opposite direction. You are welcome to do that, of course, but don't 
> start playing the injured & innocent and expect to walk away in a ray of 
> sunshine.
> 
> 
> [yes, I'll likely be hauled over the coals on this post too; yet 
> sometimes it is better to first get the moose onto the table, and go 
> from there]

Ehm. It's much simpler than that. The problem with calumny, as opposed 
to a technical argument, is that there is little meaningful defense one 
can put forth, particularly in a newsgroup setting. That's why in any 
newsgroup debate sticking to the technical argument is important, while 
attacking the person is just an unprofessional cheap shot. The suggested 
exercise of putting oneself on the receiving position of a personal 
attack was meant to reveal exactly this issue (not posing as a victim 
etc.).

However contradictory a technical argument might get, it just works to 
follow this simple policy - stick to the technical points being made by 
others, and put forth technical points as well. Progress can be made and 
everybody can leave the discussion enriched. This has made my and 
others' participation to moderated newsgroup enjoyable and productive - 
indeed, I can't imagine myself programming in C++ or in general without 
the newsgroups comp.lang.c++.moderated or comp.std.c++. It looks, 
however, that on an unmoderated newsgroup technical ability is second to 
the willingness of using potshots and personal attacks in winning an 
argument.

You've said heavy words that were uncalled for, and I hope with time 
you'll acquire the decency to wish you hadn't. I won't be part of this 
bashing contest though; it's just silly and doesn't bring any good to 
anybody, so I'll sign off.


Andrei
--
Canis latrent, sed transigo acies.