Re^2: A modest request of Merlyn

[delirium]

This node falls below the community's threshold of quality. You may see it by logging in.

[merlyn]

I just want you to tell the truth: You are not immune from personally attacking people, and have done so, and may do so again.

Really? When have I done that? I've already stated the context of my remarks to you, and in the intended context, it was not a personal attack. My mistake for not making the context clear, but that doesn't change that at the time I was not attacking personally.

So, your claim remains unproven, at least for this interaction. The words "the truth" here are a bit overbroad, don't you think?

I'll plead guilty to "incomplete communication" on this one, if that makes any difference to you. Does that help?

I get that you feel attacked. But maybe that's because you're wired up to believe that you are your code or your actions. I made a lot more progress on getting what I wanted in life when I was eventually able to give myself forgiveness for both. Especially bad code. {grin}

[TilRMan]

Several months ago I saw a large fast-food company's tractor-trailer with an image of a hamburger on the side. The image was scaled so that the burger was as tall as the trailer, probably ten feet or so. Near the burger, in large letters, was

Actual size*

In smaller letters, at the bottom (still quite legible), was:

*Not actual size

I believe delirium is accusing merlyn of doing the same thing. To paraphrase:

You're an idiot.*

*You're not really an idiot.

delirium asserts that merlyn really is issuing a personal attack. Whether merlyn means it as an attack (he obviously does not) makes it no less an attack. Whether delirium regards it as an attack makes it no less an attack. Whether there is a disclaimer makes it no less an attack. Whether merlyn had his fingers crossed behind his back makes it no less an attack.

[rchiav]

If you mean "that was a foolish thing to do", why not just type it? I find it hard to believe that you don't have a good enough grasp of the english language to say what you mean.

It's a trivial thing to distinguish between someone's actions and the person themself. In these examples, you target the person, not the action. To go back and later qualify what you really meant is to say that you're not capable of communicating what you meant in the first place.

Again, I find that hard to believe.

[delirium]

Really? When have I done that?

here and here, the examples I used initially.

I only feel attacked because you added me to the "some fool" category.

However, if you don't trust my objectivity in a node I was involved in, then I will withdraw my request if you can explain why calling downvoters losers, and the other guy an arrogant fool were not meant as personal attacks.

[dragonchild]

delirium - you're being ridiculous. Come on! You're taking merlyn to task for:
• pointing out to PodMaster that code he wrote was obviously flawed. I'm sorry, but PodMaster should know that flocking safely requires atomic operations. Posting that without consulting prior art was foolish.
• pointing out to pernod that the business model he was asking about was foolish, given that the product is heavily based on an opposing model.

If merlyn hadn't taken them to task on those topics, I sure as hell would've! In fact, merlyn taking them to task is his responsability. He is one of the elders of this community. As an elder, it is his responsability to make sure that the "young'uns" aren't doing something stupid. In ancient times, this may have been things like

• Don't carry your spear with the spearhead pointing at your body
• Always hunt the deer from downwind
• Don't eat that plant - it'll give you the runs

Now, it's the Goddess-given right for "young'uns" to ignore the words of their elders. But, it's the Goddess-given right for elders, who have already paid their dues, to give you that wisdom any damn way they choose. If you don't like it, then you can do it differently when you have 20 years in the business. Until then, expect responses like this when, to me, it sounds like you're whining that you didn't get a lollipop after going to the doctor.

[merlyn]

And again, even in those nodes, I'm attacking recent actions, not the person themselves.

Maybe I haven't explained my fundamental philosophy well enough yet. Maybe it deserves a whole thread of its own. {grin}

I believe that people are fundamentally good, and have unbroken processing skills, but are occasionally operating on bad information, and thus from time to time generate actions that are damaging to themselves or others.

Thus, it is my job when I see it to point out that an action is damaging, generally because a person (being fundamentally good) will want to know that what they are doing is damaging themselves and others. In every instance of that response, I'm deeply convinced that it's not about the person, but about their recent actions, and that they are simply misinformed.

Look at it this way: if I thought the person was fundamentally bad, why would I bother trying to help them see the error of their ways? That would be wasted breath. In fact, I believe that people that gossip behind other's backs are more like that, with a belief that the people whom they gossip about are fundamentally bad. If not, they would confront the person with their information instead. But I digress.

In every instance you have listed, including your direct interaction with me, I'm clear that you're a good person, with good processing ability, and that for the moment you are probably merely misinformed. Hence, I interact with you, knowing that about you, and believing that your inherent goodness will recognize that my feedback isn't about you, but about your actions.

That's my intent. Always. Hence my disclaimer, which is specifically about code because I think most people can get that, is also about the person, which takes someone a little more conscious to get, unfortunately.

Now, that is not to say that there aren't people that I've seen a pattern of consistent damaging behaviors, and I may spend less time trying to give feedback. But even then, deep down, I believe they can be informed, eventually. There are no bad people. Only recently damaging actions.