Re: [gentoo-user] Hard to find netiquette, enculturation bug. (Was: Re: [gentoo-user] GNOME: Cant logout and Lock Screen is showing different background from GNOME screensaver)

[Stroller]

On 22 Dec 2008, at 14:51, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> ...
> Go look at the OP and the replies and take an objective look at the
> words. Whatever the venomous, naggy, pompous, self-righteous - or even
> injured - attitude it is you might be projecting just isn't present at
> all.

You're mistaken.

On 21 Dec 2008, at 09:46, Mark David Dumlao wrote:
> I don't even know where to begin.

Suggests an expression of frustration. Frustration, presumably, at the  
reader.

> It's like being in a foreign country and being told,
> years later, that wearing shoes there meant "I'm not serious, so
> please ignore my opinions."

This analogy suggests that you're behaving all innocent & normal, and  
everyone else is somehow weird or ostracising you.

> but I didn't suspect that I was being ignored since I usually got
> one or two answers.

"I was being ignored" suggests the list - the audience to which you  
write - is rudely ignoring you.

The previous advice was that they "might" be ignoring you, but  
nevertheless, when you write to the person who "might" be ignoring  
you, it's polite to assume they are not, or otherwise infer that that  
couldn't possibly be the case.

> I am currently searching my subscription info, the gentoo site, or the
> mailing list welcome for any hints that html messages are rude or
> unwanted. I am having some difficulty finding it, that alone is a
> warning sign that the amount of pre-specialization needed to
> participate in the community is dangerously prohibitive to the point
> where it is almost invisible.

Oh, $deity.

I don't even want to start on this one.

<sigh/>

This is just such a sophisticated & well-constructed sentence,  
contrived to present your innocence in any wrongdoing which may  
possibly have happened to have occurred. The implication of this is  
that anyone who sees things differently must be wrongheaded in some way.

> This is a _community-wide_bug_

States there is a bug. With the reader. Not with the reader's  
software, but with the reader.

> If the memo appears somewhere, it might have to do with some transient
> step of the subscription process.


Use of fancy words in order to make yourself look clever.

"Transient"? "Transient"? What? Are you a frikkin' Mac user or  
something? Do you have transient windows on that thing you're driving?  
Are they, like, *aero*, man?

I recognise this writing style as "trying to make yourself look  
clever" because I use it all the time. But I try not to pick fights in  
this way, but only respond to someone in this manner when they're  
being a plonker.

No, that's not true. I do sometimes initiate disputes this way - in  
aggrieved missives to British Telecom, my bank and the local council,  
telling them ironically why their telephones, interest charges &  
pavements suck ass, without using such 4 letter words as I'd like to.  
I don't do so unless I'm really pissed off, though, and I don't  
initiate such exchanges with my friends on the mailing list.

When initiating a discussion in which there may be a contrary &  
opposing point, it is always advisable to do so with humbleness and  
with humility. It is better to say "could I be mistaken?", "is this  
the case?" and "does this need fixing?" than "this IS the case" and  
"we MUST fix it". This _leads_ the audience to each their own  
conclusions in agreement with you, rather than _telling_ them just to  
agree with you. It is CERTAINLY better to ask, "is this a bug with the  
mailing list's documentation?" than to state, "this is a bug with you  
people".

I'm pretty tired right now. I have a feeling I could write a bit more  
about this if I weren't.

Certainly, each nuance I have analysed above is quite subtle, but each  
is present. And this is only analysing the first post of the  
discussion! The one in which you had the best opportunity to persuade  
us of what a nice guy you are.

Personally, that post didn't piss me off. Or offend me at all. Please  
note how long this thread went on before I got narked enough to  
contribute to it. But I did think, "oh, oh, this one's going to stir  
up some responses". And sure enough you did, because all your words  
just had that delicate flavour of one unjustly wronged. You contrived  
your original post to present you in a certain manner, and now you  
don't like it because people don't like the characterisation that that  
implied of them. Tough luck. I've seen too many slightly-and-humbly  
aggrieved mailing list trolls before, and just once I'd like to see  
one of you turn around and say, "oooops, yeah, good point, i was wrong".

If you want to act all offended then you can deny all this & blame  
someone else. But that is what you've been doing all along.

For instance in today's latest message, you say:

    Whatever the venomous, naggy, pompous, self-righteous - or even
    injured - attitude it is you might be projecting just isn't present
    at all.

Why didn't you use these words:

    Whatever the venomous, naggy, pompous, self-righteous - or even
    injured - attitude it is that you see in my post, just isn't present
    at all.

??

Why didn't you? That would have been the natural thing to say. "Your  
problem with my post" - it's plain & simple English. Why didn't you?  
Because the words "you" and "me" would have suggested you might  
somehow be involved in this poor perception of your character. To say  
"you" and "me" would have involved you 50%, and might have required  
YOU to take some ownership of the problem, to buy in slightly that you  
might possibly be responsible.

Instead, you blame the reader for "projecting" his foul disposition  
upon you, and instead of merely & simply saying "I am not venomous,  
naggy, pompous or self-righteous", the use of "you" right next to  
those terms manages to turn the weight of the sentence around and  
associate them with the reader (who is, after all, the "you" to whom  
the sentence is addressed).

You are not stupid. I think your use of English is excellent, you just  
have to decide upon how you wish to present yourself.

Stroller.