Lonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnng

Russell said:

**** Please refrain from personal comments
**** on the behaviour and motivation of individuals in the context
**** of this thread, if only in the interests of those less likely to
**** be able to control themselves if/when the action heats up too much.

But then he seems to contradict his own request. Seems like a good
idea. We'll see.

____________________

? said:

>> Why not replace "Your design is stupid" with "I believe you could
>> improve the design by x, y, or z", ...

Olin responded

> It all depends on how much effort it's worth going thru. =A0Is this gener=
ally
> a good engineer who just didn't think of a better way, or is this a moron
> that shouldn't be here in the first place and this design is a good
> opportunity to fix that? =A0If the point is to get the moron canned, then
> being blunt but calm, factual, and correct is often a good way to get him=
 to
> overreact and hang himself. =A0Bad engineers and emotional reactions tend=
 to
> go hand in hand.

This is worth my commenting on as it is what is at the core of the
present discussion. I'm specifically referring to Olin here as it is
very specifically his situation and approach that led to this thread
and him who initiated it - and, reportedly, I who provided the straw
that broke the camel's back.

This is where Olin critically differs in opinion from "generally
declared list policy"*. =A0I say that based on essentially amicable on
and off list past conversations where we have both discussed why we
each behave as we do towards list newcomers and beginners.

Olin's stated aims, previously and above, are to use confrontation and
"verbal violence" =A0to not only bring to somebody's attention the
paucity of their position but also to drive off those who he perceives
don't belong. ie it's not just about technical instruction and
attitude but about causing either obeisance or flight. Causing a
person to ramp up their responses until they fall foul of the
moderation process is part of the process but putting to flight in its
own right is an acceptable outcome for those who won't buckle under.

This is where I differ and where I understand that the broad consensus
differs from Olin's approach. While there is no exact common agreement
on how to treat people, the list guidelines, evolved over a long while
non democratically but with broad input, make it clear that even
incidental personal abuse is not an acceptable means of achieving
technical aims - and purposeful calculated personal abuse is thus even
less acceptable.

I have only ever rejected ONE of Olin's posts. i have passed many,
while doing so with some sense of pain on a number of occasions.
In the present situation - I tend to feel as if I am the mouthpiece
for Olin's mini-beatings in such cases.

I rejected the one post because we had recently had a general
altercation on list, people were somewhat sensitive and Olin was
directing comments to a newcomer which were mild by his standards but
which could be reasonably expected to cause him to react adversely and
could reasonably be expected to exacerbate an already existing state
of tension. I explained this in enough detail to Olin, advised him
that he could resubmit the post for another opinion and apologised for
feeling the need to intervene.

Olin has chosen this as his cause celebre - he says that my rejection
was trivial and inappropriate and that it is proper that the whole
list suffer =A0the withdrawal of =A0his (genuinely undoubtedly capable &
significant ) input in consequence.

I understand him to be saying that he should have been allowed to
gently beat the newbie, to run the risk of exacerbating the state of
tension and perhaps cause the man to lose his cool ie this man was
apparently " ... a moron that shouldn't be here in the first place and
this ... is a good opportunity to fix that ...".

That sounds like a good reason to reject a post as I understand "the
will of the people". Maybe not.

Olin is sometimes not good at understanding the problems that "people
with English as a second language" have. =A0On one occasion an extremely
capable and widely renowned expert in amateur cryogenic long exposure
photography came to the list seeking assistance. He would have been a
magnificent addition to our community and expertise base. He was
French. Olin misinterpreted his use of the word 'demand" (hint - look
up a French dictionary) - got into an ugly firefight over what the
user was saying - and he clearly WASN'T demanding anything - and the
man left. Other "victims" have veen somewhat emotionally or mentally
somewhat unstable (based on my subsequent net checking). If we don't
have a place for such here and most agree then that may be fine. But,
I suspect not. Some are just 'short fused" - a normal human trait -
although I don't know why people need to be when there is an internet
and a keyboard between them and the provoker. Whatever - a bit of
needling will usually drive such away. If being short fused is a sign
of being a moron and a bad engineer then a lot of humanities top
people are morons and incapable to boot.

Whatever ... .

May I add:=A0=A0 I don't have vast problems with Olin holding his point of
view. I don't even think that he is "wrong".
People are peolpe and hold many overlapping view sets. The point is,
he is not RIGHT. In a community there is no single 'right" position or
belief. We are here to live together, to learn, to share technical
information and to build great stuff. The order of importance will
vary amongst members. This IS predomiantly, regardless of ups and
downs a PIC list. PICs are at the core and nothing should so adversely
affect that as to vastly damage the effectiveness of the listto be a
premium PIC resource. After that it is an EE list - and that is a
vitally important aspect=A0 - both in being able ti provide techncial
support for the PIC core and in its own right. TECH is, I think, (I
would) an important add on, mainly because it allows "engineers" to
deal in engineeringly things of all flavours without diluting true EE
and PIC. Other tags are less important. OT is a vital safety valve and
means aof allowing the commiunity to be a community without diluting
the core areas.

* BUT, I used the phrase above "generally declared list policy".=A0 I
understand this to be that we don't tolerate ongoing laziness, wilful
stupidity or obdurate bad behaviour BUT that we do want to encourage
beginners to=A0grow into the list atmosphere and=A0ethos and give them
some time to learn and grow. We accomodate "as wide a range of normal
as we reasonably can".=A0 Olin's view differs. He would like to narrow
the community, drive out (literally) those who don't fit into his mold
and make the list more like whatv he is comfortable with. I can
understand and sympathise with that perspective. But not on my watch
:-).


=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0 =A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=A0=
=A0=A0=A0=A0 Russell




=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0Russell

-- =

http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist