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.
------
We are the carpenters and bricklayers of the Information Age.
Then there are Damian modules.... *sigh* ... that's not about being less-lazy -- that's about being on some really good drugs -- you know, there is no spoon. - flyingmoose
I shouldn't have to say this, but any code, unless otherwise stated, is untested
| [reply] |
| [reply] |
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.
| [reply] |
