> From: "Olin Lathrop"
> Hi, folks.  I've decided to resubscribe to the PIClist, at least for a
> while.  I suspected all along that James could only remove someone from
the
> list, and didn't have the means to actually ban them.  Even if he did,
> coming back as a different email address would be trivial.

OK. Thought about the merit of doing this.
It has pros and cons.
You've expressed your opinion, as you have a right (of sorts :-) ) to do
about the list admins reaction and how bad or good your behaviour was.

I'd like to comment on your comments.

First off, I was one of the ones who argued, both on list and off list, for
your being RETAINED on the list. This was BOTH because you were without
doubt a valuable list member AND because I felt it was worth putting the
effort into having you as part of the greater family here for your sake as
well as everyone else's.

I greatly respect you technical abilities and note the usefulness of the
development resources that you have made available to all.

However (there's always a however :-( ) I am astounded at the content of
your introductory reappearance letter. (And I get less astoundable as the
years progress.).

I am not at all suggesting that I am perfect in my onlist behaviour or that
I should never be "corrected" or advised. It even happens sometimes :-)

As I interpret what you write (and interpretations are subjective) you are
saying that James was wrong, that he was silly and unfair to have acted as
he did, that what you did overall was fair and reasonable and that you
expect to pick up more or less where you had left off,  and that he can't
keep you out anyway - nyah nyah - so there.

The concept of cumulative performance doesn't seem to have entered into your
consciousness. I do not have a private line into James brain but I imagine
what got to James was your continual unremitting rudeness not only to people
who arguably deserved, at worst,  some sort of lesser insult and correction
than you delivered but also those who you insulted quite undeservedly or
quite unintelligently. A number of those who you have been rude to have been
new to the list and also did not speak English as a first language. I am
away from my home PC at present so can't easily check, but there was one
gentleman who may well not have been back since you attacked him. He was
essentially polite, potentially extraordinarily useful to the PICLIST
community (possibly potentially more useful than yourself)(if that can be
imagined) and you ripped into in grand style. The problem was - the
misunderstanding was in your mind, because he was French and misunderstood
ONE word you had used. On the basis of this usage you launched a fullish
broad side. The word was "demand". You used it first. He misunderstood it.
What do you think a Frenchman with French very much his primary language
might think the word to mean? You could argue that you could hardly be
expected to realise that he had not understood you. My point is that if you
hadn't got stuck into him as you did then the misunderstanding would have
been largely irrelevant. This man happens to be mature, technically
confident and competent in the extreme and able to stick up for himself well
enough. But you have been just as happy to rip into others where language
was the key to your misunderstanding and they have done nothing that in any
way merits your correction. On the occasions where this has happened and you
have subsequently been made aware of your error I do not recall you ever
having apologised. (Actually, on reflection, I do not recall you having
apologised ever under any circumstances, but my memory is not eidetic).

James has, as you may recall, expressly stated that you are not official
list behavioural policeman and that he doesn't expect you to assume that
role. (words not verbatim but that was the gist). I also do not have that
role or right - but I feel the right to feel just the wee-est bit protective
for James when you come back with such an introduction.

It would have been "nice" if there had been the slightest amount of
contrition, perhaps just a tip of the hat to the difficulty of the admin'
role in dealing with such matters etc.

In your absence we have had the same range of newbies, people seeking to
have their term projects done, unthinking questioners, people who can't yet
spell G-O-O-G-L-E, and their ilk. They have been dealt with in varying ways
by varying people, mostly quite ably and happily (with perhaps one notable
exception). Their mommys have not been invoked, their IQ's denigrated or
their confidence in humanity deeply shaken. If you bring your extremely
considerable technical competence to bear on assisting the next 1000 such
people who you deem deserving of you efforts, and leave the lazy, stupid,
*AND* English-not-a-first-language, AND the
new-to-this-sort-of-thing-and-not-quite-sure-where-to-start and their ilk to
the tender mercies of your list family THEN I can see a win win situation
for us all. If rather you insist on re-assuming your Muppets-bald-eagle type
role of yore, pushing James to the limit to prove that you are really in
control and can't be pushed around and refusing to consider whether a
person's apparent stupidity may be due to a language barrier or whatever,
then we should have interesting times. Nobody ever asks YOU personally to
answer their questions except when your name is mentioned or they are
responding to a post you made personally. Why not just leave those who are
not worthy of you to others to sort out? The gap between your technical
abilities and your social graces is immense. This is not a crime. It's not
necessarily even a defect per se. The world can be a better place because of
the existence of brilliant socially-graceless people. Only when one starts
trying to become expert in all fields do we get problems. And ...

OK - stop there. Before you reply (or press delete).
Does this feel good?  Is this really the way we should be doing things? Do
you feel edified, informed or uplifted by my rant?
Now -
> Therefore, telling them their message was
> percieved as stupid or idiotic is doing them a favor.  Maybe they weren't
> aware how others would perceive it and try to not do that in the future.
If
> they still think their message was correct, just ignore what I said.  Big
> deal.  If they are really hot and bothered about it, tell me I was being
an
> idiot for reacting that way.  Again, big deal.  I'd probably find that
> entertaining.

 Have I done you a favour? Are you now more aware how others may perceive
your post(s)? Are you just going to shrug this all off? (and were you going
to before I asked that question?) Do you really want me to call you an idiot
for reacting as you have? Are you entertained?

Have I overdone it here? Probably.
Have you got the point? Hopefully.
Why not live and let live? Bless us with you undoubted brilliance! Make
everyone's lives more pleasant by both your contributions and your silence,
as relevant.
AND, in the process make James' day !!!! :-)

I'll try to do the same :-)


        Russell McMahon

--
http://www.piclist.com#nomail Going offline? Don't AutoReply us!
email listserv@mitvma.mit.edu with SET PICList DIGEST in the body