[oclug] A new HOWTO

[Greg]

Michael W. Bazdell wrote:
> I do apologize to anybody who took this personally. I would like to
> point out that I'm very good natured and mean no disrespect to anybody.
> That being said, I did offer a solution in point 3. The purpose for the
> e-mail was not to antagonize or declare superiority, merely to show that
> these same topics come up far to often, and have no effect every time.
> Other than starting debates which lead to nowhere.
> 
> Again, please don't take this as a personal attack. I'm just trying to
> have a little fun while keeping things in perspective.


Unfortunately, whatever you intended to say was hidden behind what you 
did say.  And that, in turn, hidden behind what people variously 
understood it to mean.


For example, Bill, since he is here, respects money and those who appear 
to have money, more than Brad does, and is likely to see criticism of 
such as more disrespectful than others might.  Unless you make allowance 
for Bill's attitudes, you are likely to offend them and provoke a 
response which is not entirely pertinent.. which in turn provokes Brad.

For example, me, to the best of my knowledge we have never laid eyes on 
each other.  So, I have to guess sometimes what you mean.  If our eyes 
had been laid on each other, while you were speaking what you wrote, 
perhaps I might have noticed that you were grinning as if you were 
making a good joke, perhaps you might have noticed that I was not 
grinning as if you were making a good joke.  The misunderstanding could 
have been corrected before it became an issue.  However, the eyes were 
not there.

Even in the best of cases, there are many other glitches waiting trip us 
up.. typos.. dictionaries..  We have seen enough dictionary-wars here 
that a prudent poster should tend to use more formal vocabularies and 
grammars than he might in casual conversation.  Worse, even taking care 
to consult a good dictionary, it is rather easy to offend someone who 
uses none, or even just a different dictionary.

All that said, I doubt David is antagonized or offended.  Not by 
something as silly as this.  He does not seem to me to lean heavily on 
OCLUG for his self-esteem.  Indeed, I bet if he were offended (by 
something more serious) he would say so himself.  I can't imagine David 
harrassing anyone with attack-chihuahuas.


Greg


> On Wed, 2005-07-09 at 08:57 -0400, Bill Strosberg wrote:
> 
>>Michael W. Bazdell wrote:
>>
>>>3) Believe that you'll actually change people's mind through a general
>>>e-mail instead of talking to the specific individuals who caused the
> 
> 
> 
>>>problem.
>>
>>Hmm, a response to David that:
>>
>>a)	Hints at superiority;
>>b)	Fails to suggest any viable course of resolution;
>>c)	Manages to antagonize one of our best international Linux success stories
>>d)	Alienates one of the longest standing financial supporters of OCLUG
>>
>>Michael, unless you are significantly contributing more to the Linux
>>community than Roaring Penguin and David personally, I suggest a public
>>apology, and then complete silence as a course of action.
>>
>>--
>>Bill Strosberg
>>