[CentOS] Reducing the deleterious effects of ego related issues on the list: growing up individually.

[Bryan J. Smith]

[ I'll answer anyway. ;-]

"William L. Maltby" <BillsCentOS at triad.rr.com> wrote:
> One did not interpret it as intended and chose to come
> flapping his background, degrees and experience .

I think you should re-read my post.  It's key to what you
missed (especially in the order of your statements before
mine).

Your post here:  
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-November/014351.html

Then my response:  
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-November/014359.html

> *But* he also provided some valuable education to me
> surrounding the topic.

And I appreciate that.  But I don't think you do in this
after-thought.

> His need to "out credential" me (easily done since I have
> none)

I don't think I was doing that.  I was merely saying I too
was using UNIX when you were.  In fact, given my age, I often
get a "you were too young to have used UNIX in the '80s"
attitude from many people.

In fact, I did _not_ take _any_ offense to your statement:  

  'If you research back to the epoch or thereabouts, you
   may find I spoke the truth.  I began working on
   UNIX PWB Versions 6/7.'

I merely responded with where I was coming from.

> caused me no aggravation whatsoever.

Nor did your statements before mine.  I was merely sharing. 
Even Preston confirmed I need not fear of sharing my
experience.  Regarding my statement ...

  '[ I know I'm now going to hear from "select people" that
   I'm "flaunting my resume" again.  Sigh. ]'

Even Preston calmed my fears ...

  'Actually in this context this information is useful.
   And tone matters too, remember. This has been a good
   thread, IMHO.'

> *I* had no problem with the (somewhat) inappropriate nature
> of his response

Is it me, or is that a self-conflicting statement?

I appreciate your saying you had no issue with it, but please
don't call it "(somewhat) inappropriate nature" to merely
state that I too had been using UNIX at the same time you
had.  We both took a few lines to state where we were coming
from -- you first -- not that is matters, but it does matter
from the consideration of applying the term "inappropriate
nature."

Okay, so maybe "too much story" in there.  But com'mon, you
gave a few lines _first_, then I gave a few lines.  To point
that out as "(somewhat) inappropriate nature" is a
_double_standard_.

Again, I invite your statements from _before_ I made my
statements of a "(somewhat) inappropriate nature" ...
 
  'Please note the word "original". If you research back to
   the epoch or thereabouts, you may find that I spoke the
   truth. I began working on UNIX PWB Versions 6/7.'

I did _not_ take offense to it.

> I *propose* that this should be the normal response to
> certain perceived objectionable behavior, as a courtesy
> to the rest of the list.

But what is this response?  It's basically the same type of
response you're arguing against?

> Why?  Selfishness. I get tired of <DEL> <DEL> <DEL> ... on
> the crap that follows. *If* there was any chance that one's
> objectionable behavior would be improved by pointing out
> various transgressions and/or lapses in etiquette, I say go
> for it.
> But there are certain individuals for which we know this
> effort to be a complete waste of time and energy.

And you just made my point.

EVERYONE:

"Read between the lines" of this and what do you see? 
Re-read it and let me know, off-list if you like (to spare
the list).

This is from someone I did _not_ mind one bit starting wtih
...

  'If you research back to the epoch or thereabouts, you
   may find I spoke the truth.  I began working on
   UNIX PWB Versions 6/7.'

But yet he "didn't take offense" to how I answered, which is
what this post is all about?  Com'mon!

Now many people would get offended by the first statement
that as if you were saying "you don't know what you are
talking about."  And they might infer the second statement
that you have been using UNIX longer.

But *I* did _not_ take _any_ offense.  I honestly didn't.
I read it completely different!

I read it that you were an experienced administrator who has
been working with UNIX since the early '80s at least -- a few
years before myself.  So then I shared that I started with
UNIX in the late '80s.

So what's the problem?  Why this post?

So hell yes, I am _now_ offended!  Not for what you said in
the earlier post's quote, but what you are saying -- quite
self-righteous -- in this post.

It's hypocritical!  I hope you can see that!

> So why do it? Discrimination is needed. A good starting
> point may be "If I say this, *might* the person see it as
> a positive suggestion, as intended?".
> Anyway, this was the (potential) end of the thread... but
> nooooo. Someone else has to jump in. Don't misunderstand, 
> I *completely* understand the emotional impetus, some of
> the history causing that impetus and think the interjection
> was not unreasonable

Here's the difference between you and I ...

I am not saying your post here:  
http://lists.centos.org/pipermail/centos/2005-November/014351.html

Is "(somewhat) inappropriate behavior."  I still do _not_
think it's "(somewhat) inappropriate behavior."

But you are saying my sharing of background is?
I'm kinda lost?

How would you be satisfied?

"I've been using UNIX since the '80s too."?

Was it length?
What was it?

What part was the "(somewhat) inappropriate behavior"
prompted this post?

Why did you say "there are certain individuals for which we
know this effort to be a complete waste of time and energy"
with regard to "*If* there was any chance that one's
objectionable behavior would be improved by pointing out
various transgressions and/or lapses in etiquette, I say go
for it."

How much of an unidirection *INSULT* to you have to throw
while assume you are the least bit objective?!?!?!

All for what, someone could have said, "I've been using UNIX
since the '80s too" instead of taking a few more lines? 
Again, you basically made the post that you tell others not
to!

How self-righteous and self-blinding can someone be? 
Especially given your statement _prior_ to my statements ...

  'If you research back to the epoch or thereabouts, you
   may find I spoke the truth.  I began working on
   UNIX PWB Versions 6/7.'

I didn't take offense to your statements.  Why did you feel
the need to make the statements in this post about mine? 
Really?

> and I know it was well-intentioned (for which I thank you).
> But part of the maturity we need on the list is to consider
> not only our on ego-centric needs to "stand up for
ourselves
> and others", but the "personalities" of (and possible
> effects on) various list participants.

Like this post?

No sense in responding further.  I think I've made my point.

I have just never been so-insulted by someone in such a
round-about, indirect way -- from a standpoint of a
hypocrite.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                | Sent from Yahoo Mail
mailto:b.j.smith at ieee.org     |  (please excuse any
http://thebs413.blogspot.com/ |   missing headers)