Years ago my mother used to say to me, she'd say, "In this world, Elwood, you must be" -- she always called me Elwood -- "In this world, you must be oh so smart or oh so pleasant."

Well, for years I was smart.

I recommend pleasant.

And you may quote me.

Spoken by James Stewart as the character Elwood P. Dowd in the 1950 film "Harvey"

But when I have time for only one, I pick effective.

Baloney. It isn't a matter of time, it's a matter of frame of mind. There is no excuse for being unnecessarily rude.

We're all rude, from time to time. That's the reality of human interaction. But we have a choice: we can be rude and own it, or we can be rude and be hypocrites about it. For some reason -- which I'll leave to the sociologists among us to figure out -- all perl monks, with only one or two exceptions, choose the former.

Consider for a moment that "being rude" is a lot more about the recipient than about the speaker. What constitutes "rude" is not a universal item.

So you're saying that either (a) more people err on the side of caution, actually missing opportunities to impact and make a difference, or (b) everyone is a lot more psychic than I am, and does the right thing magically?

I'd rather be in the category of (c) I'll say things as I see them, and as I'd want to be treated, and if that's seen as rude by the recipient, I'll acknowledge that and mop up the mess.

I've not done ONE thing here that I wouldn't be the willing recipient of. I really do believe in that golden rule thing, in case you get the reference.

Maybe this is also driven by personal history. I believe there were many times that people withheld knowledge from me because they were "being nice". I have evidence that this has done more damage to me than good. I am vowing never to make that mistake for others. I promise it. I'm commited to it. I will communicate straightly about what is going on, even if initially it is seen as "rude". Because to me, "wanting to be liked" does not trump "wanting to make a difference", like it does for some^Wmost people.

-- Randal L. Schwartz, Perl hacker
Be sure to read my standard disclaimer if this is a reply.

I'd rather be in the category of (c) I'll say things as I see them, and as I'd want to be treated, and if that's seen as rude by the recipient, I'll acknowledge that and mop up the mess.

In other words, if I call someone a fool and name them explicitly, then I'll acknowledge that the person incorrectly interpretted that as me calling them a fool (which is a personal attack) and I'll acknowledge that they have some personal problem that makes them too attached to their personal actions and then I'll mop up the mess that they have now made by pointing to my disclaimer and explaining how I have done nothing wrong and am proud of my actions.

I've said what follows to you several times now. On at least two previous occasions you mentioned that you felt you should try to remember this in future...

When someone is upset by something you do, you "acknowledge it" by apologizing.

To apolgize effectively, you need to be sincere. Which means you have to make an effort to see the situation from the other person's point of view.

If you just keep telling people how you didn't make any mistake, then you aren't acknowledging anything (except that you think other people have problems) which does your case no good.

So, are you capable of seeing it from someone else's point of view? To briefly stop defending your self/actions? You'd end up looking, well, mature. It would certainly improve my assessment of your maturity.

- tye        

DON'T USE EVAL FOR THIS!

Had that been the entire body of your post, you would not have been rude, and you would have been every bit as effective. Your histrionics did not add any effectiveness.