[oclug] A new HOWTO
sphex at sympatico.ca
Wed Sep 7 21:49:17 EDT 2005
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
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.
> 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
>>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.
More information about the OCLUG