Re: Official Compliant


On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 13:23, Ali Akcaagac wrote:
> On Thu, 2004-07-15 at 12:43 +0200, Thomas Vander Stichele wrote:
> > The reason a lot of people excuse Mark's behaviour and chalk it up to
> > "one bad day" is precisely because 99% of the time Mark has good days. 
> > And on those good days, he contributes a lot of code, sends helpful
> > emails, tries to unfuse discussions, and tries to keep lists on topic. 
> Yeah but we shouldn't forget that his good days are being honoured with
> a paycheque every month handed over by Red Hat. And the salery he get's
> for working on GNOME will of course give him plenty of good days and a
> lot of motivation to contribute a lot of code and a lot of helpful
> emails to the list.

You can find excuses for everything, but this is a really bad one :) Are
you saying your job sucks so much that you only have bad days ? If so,
you need to switch jobs.

Anyway, you seem to assume that Mark gets paid fulltime to work on
GNOME.  I really doubt that.  Even if Red Hat is an open source company,
that doesn't mean they get to choose what they work on.

Also, remember Mark comes from Sun, where he seemed from the outside to
be slightly frustrated.  But still, this frustration of having bad days
at Sun didn't reflect in his mails towards the GNOME community.

>  I assume this to be the case since I see him writing
> with a domain name when he replies to emails and other stuff.

It's a bad assumption, but I'm sure you know that.  Does pay you
a lot ?

> So I assume that he is working for Red Hat at that moment and that his
> job is to contribute stuff to GNOME.

You seem to be assuming something that could help in lending credibility
to your argument without backing up why you assume this.  Classic
rhetorical trick.

> I feel sorry that I can not contribute the same amount of time and code
> to GNOME. I am a poor guy who has other things to do every day to get
> some salery and pay his bills and his food.

You can, you just make different choices in life.  They're not better or
worse, they're different.

> > If you want people to respect you you will have to change your
> > behaviour.  It doesn't help anyone to say that everyone else should
> > change their behaviour towards you.  Why is this a problem for you and
> > nobody else ?
> I don't see the point of having change myself. I am what I am and the
> same way I behave on all sorts of communities and none of them except
> some individuals within GNOME show these problems.

So you don't feel you need to change anything, yet you do feel that all
those other people need to ? Why do they need to ?

>  I can't change to
> have an american, australian, �tian or indian way of life. I am what I
> am, you are what you are and everyone else is an individual either.

And yet I have shown I have the capacity to change and not be rude to
you in mails anymore, for whatever reason.  There is a huge range of
grey between "people are what they are" and "people should change
completely".  Showing some effort in that direction will get you a long

> My bad days only come when I am getting accused by people for junk I
> never did and this summed up pretty much in the past. Once someone
> showed up talking some junk about me, the next one hooked up there and
> continued. Don't forget how you accused me for the armageddon stuff
> which I never wrote. You didn't took the time or chance to either verify
> it, you never took the time writing me an email asking me whether I was
> responsible for it or not, you didn't even took the chance to contact my
> ISP in GERMANY verifying whether the junk written and post from JAPAN
> truly comes from me.

Actually, I have taken the time to verify it.  But as you well know,
apart from analyzing the text, finding similarities in grammar and
spelling mistakes, and picking out themes, there is no technique to
prove or disprove that you wrote it. I have never seen an armageddon
post coming from Japan.  It's pretty irrelevant anyway, lots of people
have lots of access to machines worldwide.  It's as difficult for me to
try and prove that you wrote it as it is for you that you didn't, so
that's why I have stopped caring about the armageddon post.  One thing
you never said, though, is whether you agree with the armageddon

Like I said, I don't care anymore about those posts, and it's pointless
to bring them up from either side.  It's past history.

> It's a pretty nice try from your side to make the public believe that I
> was rude,

There are mails in which you were rude.  The fact that you were rude
because other people were rude to you doesn't change that.  You can
defend yourself by saying that they were rude first, but you can't say
that you weren't rude.  You were, and you know it.  So was I, and I know
it.  Let's argue the real issues.

>  made a lot of mistakes, that I must change myself

You don't have to change yourself.  I'm just offering advice on how to
get accepted better since that is what your goal seems to be.  Is it
something else ?

> You don't know what I did and what I did not, you can't see my bad days
> because I am most of the time sitting behind my computer and never met
> you in real life, you don't know anything about me but you are full of
> prejudices.

Are you saying that you are a completely different man in person than on
the internet ? Are you saying that I cannot know anything about you
because of who you are on the internet ?

> > There are lots and lots more people in the community I've had pleasant
> > experiences with.
> There is no need to turn a normal
> conversation into some insulting mess by namecalling people or trying to
> make some sort of 'troll' out of them. The GNOME community reached a
> point that everything some individual does not like to hear is marked as
> 'troll' the word 'troll' is over abused in the GNOME community.

Let's not overextend the discussion.  You were complaining about how YOU
were being treated.  Let's not try and stick up for other people here,
otherwise we won't get anywhere.  I have, by the way, apart from some of
the regular crackposts from people that have shown they aren't really
interested on working on whatever strange suggestion they have, not seen
a lot of troll-calling on the lists.

> I have no problems when Mark or someone else comes up asking whether the
> conversation could be shifted to another place. But it's usually the
> tone that makes the music.

> I think this is enough as reply.

Actually, no.  I would really like for you to reply to my direct
question where I summarized what I think is your opinion, and where I
asked you why you are sticking around in the GNOME community.  After
everything that has happened, what makes you stay around if you really
feel that everything you say about GNOME and some of the people is true
? If you really think that GNOME is corrupt and has no future and is
wrong, why are you here ?

I'm asking this to better understand what drives you so I can further
adapt myself in future discussions with you.  I feel I am somewhat more
successful at interacting with you and I'd like to keep up that trend.


Dave/Dina : future TV today ! -
<-*- thomas (dot) apestaart (dot) org -*->
Cos I feel like a fake when I feel
any feeling
And I wouldn't wanna happen to you
Cos I know that you mean it
<-*- thomas (at) apestaart (dot) org -*->
URGent, best radio on the net - 24/7 ! -

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]