top posting for the win best post ever (well on this thread) Rolf wrote: > Olin Lathrop wrote: > >> James Newton wrote: >> >> >>>> I believe that he fell out with the admins on the Microchip forums >>>> over a rating system that they introduced. >>>> >>>> >>> How surprising. >>> >>> > > [snipped] > > Hi Olin, as for me I find this thread somewhat amusing. For a person who > is obviously intelligent, I find it interesting (in an academic way) > that you are unable to 'win people over' more easily. > > On a personal note, I mostly ignore your abrasive nature, and I can see > through much of it. I have been the victim of your wrath before, and, in > my instance, I felt your 'fire and brimstone' response was misguided, > and, on further reflection, childish. > > Yet, a while ago I had a revelation. I realized that you do not know > everything! You do not know how to 'interface' with (some/many/most) > people without antagonizing them. It still surprises me that you have > not realized this myopia in your personality, so, I think today I will > enlighten you in a way you may understand... > > When it comes to interacting with people you appear not to have "RTFM". > Your (e-mail) persona comes across as arrogant, abrasive, and defiant. > Go and read the 'human datasheet', and when you have you can come back > and interact in a more appropriate manner. May I suggest you start with: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/How_to_Win_Friends_and_Influence_People > > ... from where, I have copied the following: > > > Fundamental Techniques in Handling People > > * "Don't criticize, condemn or complain." > * "Give honest and sincere appreciation." > * "Arouse in the other person an eager want." > > > Six Ways to Make People Like You > > * "Become genuinely interested in other people." > * "Smile." > * "Remember that a man's name is to him the sweetest and most > important sound in any language." > * "Be a good listener. Encourage others to talk about themselves." > * "Talk in the terms of the other man's interest." > * "Make the other person feel important and do it sincerely." > > > Twelve Ways to Win People to Your Way of Thinking > > * "Avoid arguments." > * "Show respect for the other person's opinions. Never tell someone > they are wrong." > * "If you're wrong, admit it quickly and emphatically." > * "Begin in a friendly way." > * "Start with questions the other person will answer yes to." > * "Let the other person do the talking." > * "Let the other person feel the idea is his/hers." > * "Try honestly to see things from the other person's point of view." > * "Sympathize with the other person." > * "Appeal to noble motives." > * "Dramatize your ideas." > * "Throw down a challenge." > > > Nine Ways to Change People Without Giving Offense or Arousing > Resentment > > * "Begin with praise and honest appreciation." > * "Call attention to other people's mistakes indirectly." > * "Talk about your own mistakes first." > * "Ask questions instead of giving direct orders." > * "Let the other person save face." > * "Praise every improvement." > * "Give them a fine reputation to live up to." > * "Encourage them by making their faults seem easy to correct." > * "Make the other person happy about doing what you suggest." > > > > Also, may I suggest RFC1855.... > > So, may I suggest that you take a step back and realize that not many > people on piclist actually like you (although people do respect your > technical abilities). According to Dale Carneige, you have managed to > break almost every (actually, I think you have broken every single > one...) 'winning' technique in his book. It should come as no surprise > to you that "when you operate a part outside of its ratings, that > strange things may happen and parts may become damaged". > > What I find so fascinating about your behavior, more than anything else, > is that you really think that you can blackmail people (Jim - note1) > into helping you get 're-instated', and that you think you can threaten > people (Fred - note2), and then (to top it all) ridicule the 'admins' > (James - note3 and Herbert - note4), and that by doing this people will > want to have you around like a nice comfortable friendly chum. Every > single one of these actions is likely to have the opposite of the > intended result. You have hit rock at the bottom of the pit you have > dug, and yet you still keep digging. Frankly, I find it hard to believe > that your motives are really to be 'reinstated' or 'uncensored'. Your > actions are so contrary to your stated goals that I have to believe your > are gaming for something else.... though I can't seem to think of what > that may be other than simply to "play a game with piclist because you > are mad at it". Actually, it may also be because you need to get more > advertising out for your products. > > If you really wanted to be respected and liked here, a more appropriate > approach would be a sincere attempt at mending some bridges (or building > some new ones) rather than to launch a hostile blackmail attack. > > So, I know it takes all types to make the world go around, but, as I > say, for an intelligent person, you are just doing it all wrong. To > quote you > > If someone does something stupid, lazy, or arrogant, they should be prepared to be called on it. If > they can't handle that, they don't belong here or most anywhere else. > > Well, you have done something stupid, arrogant and also wrong. It is > stupid to insult the admins of the list, it is wrong to blackmail people > in to doing things for you, and it is arrogant to think that just > because you know PIC's really well that you must be worth having around > in the piclist. > > So, decide for yourself whether you belong here...... because, for the > most part, you are never 'prepared to be called on it' when you > antagonize, belittle, and generally insult people. So, I believe you > are, at the moment, being particularly stupid, and: > > I don't think it was cultural differences as much as people reacting > inappropriately when they got caught publicly doing something stupid. Some > people instead of saying "oops" get defensive and attack the messenger. > > This I think applies to your situation quite suitably. Whenever your > hurtful 'outbursts' are challenged you respond with defensiveness and > attack the messenger. > > In addition, in general, people who force ultimatums loose out: > > They can treat me like dirt or have me add > value to the list. They get to pick only one. > > When confronted with ultimatums, people do not normally roll-over and > take it. Ultimatums are desperate, immature responses. > > Finally, everyone has opinions. Everyone has their own conscience. > Everyone has a comfort zone. Most importantly, everyone has a different > set of ethical and principle structures. If we were all the same it > would be boring. Most people come to understand this in nursery school > (or younger) when kids are taught to share, to not bully, and to be > sensitive to other people's emotional state. Yet, you have the arrogance > to assume that your set of values is better than anyone else. You > further have the arrogance to make broad, inaccurate, and demeaning > statements on behalf of others, "putting words in other peoples mouths", > that are not necessarily (or even remotely) true: > > Too many people on this list adhere to the silly notion that if you can't > say something nice you shouldn't say it at all. It is certainly easier to > avoid being the messenger, but is less useful in the long run. If you do > something that others perceive as stupid, wouldn't you rather know that than > being given content-free placitudes with everyone laughing behind your back? > > People believe in the "silly" notion because it is not silly. Anyway, > beliefs are beliefs, and just because you don't have the same moral > value set does not make you right. Additionally, Just because you > perceive something as 'stupid' does not mean that everyone thinks it is > stupid. And finally, just because you may be laughing at someone (and > expressing it too their face too) does not mean that everyone else is > laughing 'behind their back'. That entire paragraph illustrates so much > of your arrogance, and highlights the differences between you and me. > Your instinct appears to 'correct' people's stupidity by ridiculing > them. Other people have different responses. As a side-note, you say it > is 'easier to avoid being the messenger' as if you are sacrificing > yourself to inform 'them' of their stupidity.... well, now you know what > the real sacrifice is: by volunteering to be the (blunt and arrogant) > messenger you are attracting the scorn of others, and certainly not > making friends. > > Finally (again), you believe that 999 times out of 1000 you are right... > well, you are wrong. Every time you belittle a person you are wrong. > Wrong, wrong, wrong. As much as you feel a person may deserve it, you > are still wrong. > > But again, you bring up the single case where there was a true > misunderstanding. Mistakes get made in any system, but getting it wrong > once in 1000 instances doesn't make it a good idea to deal with the other > 999 cases less efficiently and effectively. > > I think a lot of the things people take issue with can be summarized in > one more sentence (by you)... > > It really doesn't > matter if someone said "No, that should be 200 ohms." versus "anyone that > passed 7th grade math can see that it should be 200 ohms.". > > There is a big difference in the two alternatives... anyone who has > graduated from kindergarten can see it! > > (E-mail intentionally sent in HTML (and plain text) because it supports > the more complex quoting format. Stick that in your pipe!). > > Rolf > > note1: > > If you want more free help on the list, try convincing the admins to treat > me like everyone else here. > > note2: > > If you're going to make such a accusation it should be accompanied with > facts. I respected Roman and don't ever remember "bashing" him. So unless > you are just engaging in libel, let's see a reference to the post in > question. > > note3 > > I don't think what I've done here recently has been against any rules, > although sometimes it's hard to tell because James' threshold is ever > changing and getting more touchy-feely over time. > .... > James used to understand the distinction between "this is wrong" versus "you are a > stupid person", but lately can't seem to see the difference. > > note4 > > The question isn't about whether it would work but what your idea of "work" > is, of course. If you'd rather have a low content touchy-feely list than a > vibrant useful one, even if a occasional lazy poster gets upset, then things > do "work" better according to your definition now. However if that's your > choice you don't belong as a admin, but that's another discussion. > > > > > > > -- http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist