From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Richard Stallman Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: [OT] Netiquette Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:30:03 -0400 Message-ID: References: <2E2BAEFF-FEAD-4616-87CD-3B77D2734256@alastairs-place.net> <19321565-3F93-4299-996F-8A2081C462AF@alastairs-place.net> <85bqsyfrhb.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <853beaf0c4.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <6C1D0482-9501-47E5-A79E-C40EF7B349A8@alastairs-place.net> <7BBA4171-6111-42FF-9293-0EF2D8E2E436@alastairs-place.net> <39FA2311-142B-41C9-BCC3-AF09D6B819FC@alastairs-place.net> <85wtbkc5ac.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> <9F63F016-EB0C-4BD8-B359-D3E646800AF1@alastairs-place.net> <85r71rd7q1.fsf@lola.goethe.zz> Reply-To: rms@gnu.org NNTP-Posting-Host: main.gmane.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1150360241 11837 80.91.229.2 (15 Jun 2006 08:30:41 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Thu, 15 Jun 2006 08:30:41 +0000 (UTC) Cc: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Thu Jun 15 10:30:38 2006 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([199.232.76.165]) by ciao.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqnFA-0005vw-MD for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 10:30:26 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqnFA-0002Cn-4y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:30:24 -0400 Original-Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FqnEr-0002Az-5g for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:30:05 -0400 Original-Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1FqnEq-0002Ag-HW for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:30:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1FqnEq-0002Aa-8T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:30:04 -0400 Original-Received: from [199.232.76.164] (helo=fencepost.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.52) id 1FqnOC-0004bN-BY for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:39:44 -0400 Original-Received: from rms by fencepost.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.34) id 1FqnEp-0007AR-Cb; Thu, 15 Jun 2006 04:30:03 -0400 Original-to: Alastair Houghton Original-To: sds@podval.org In-reply-to: (message from Sam Steingold on Wed, 14 Jun 2006 13:32:52 -0400) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:55911 Archived-At: > It shouldn't be surprising that if someone complains about something > you have said, and then you and others proceed to attack them for > complaining, they won't want to work with you. David Kastrup's remark was somewhat harsh, harsh enough that he ought not to have said it. Your complaint was justified, as far as that goes. However, what he said wasn't really an attack on you, just somewhat harsh. So I think that, even though you had grounds for a complaint, it would have been wiser for you to let the matter slide. It would likewise have been better, and wiser, if other people had not responded to your complaint by arguing with you. They were right in a limited sense, that you had made a mistaken assumption and thus reached a conclusion that was a little too strong. But that was a side issue, and they should not have argued about it. Some people, after seeing that your feelings were hurt, responded in an aggressive tone. That was a bad thing to do, but I see why they did it. Your statement came across as a demand: "Everyone shut up instantly, or I will refuse to contribute my code." So their response really meant, "I'll prove you can't order me to shut up!" It was foolish to respond that way, but it was almost inevitable that someone would. It seems that both you and others passed up opportunities to let the quarrel end (by not responding). If only people had used those opportunities, we would have had a good outcome. I hope that those who continue contributing to Emacs will learn the lesson not to continue arguments about side issues where someone's feelings have been hurt. Don't take the risk of hurting the person more. Let it drop!