From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Nick Dokos Subject: Re: My apprehensions listed (Re: Not merging org-lparse, org-xhtml & org-odt to the core) Date: Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:18:37 -0400 Message-ID: <4743.1314249517@alphaville.dokosmarshall.org> References: <81ei0e6vol.fsf@gmail.com> <20110822094816.0f61f019@vknecht-intel.unibw-hamburg.de> <80k4a5ab4f.fsf@somewhere.org> <81zkiz8zdw.fsf@gmail.com> <87ty97hyej.fsf@gmail.com> <81fwkruiaw.fsf@gmail.com> <87obzesvb7.fsf@gnu.org> <81zkiy8c4f.fsf@gmail.com> Reply-To: nicholas.dokos@hp.com Return-path: Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:40787) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwSKw-0005LD-JT for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:18:44 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwSKv-0004bA-K7 for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:18:42 -0400 Received: from g5t0008.atlanta.hp.com ([15.192.0.45]:34970) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QwSKv-0004b0-DG for emacs-orgmode@gnu.org; Thu, 25 Aug 2011 01:18:41 -0400 In-Reply-To: Message from Jambunathan K of "Thu, 25 Aug 2011 07:42:30 +0530." <81zkiy8c4f.fsf@gmail.com> List-Id: "General discussions about Org-mode." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sender: emacs-orgmode-bounces+geo-emacs-orgmode=m.gmane.org@gnu.org To: "Jambunathan K." Cc: Bastien , nicholas.dokos@hp.com, Orgmode Jambunathan K wrote: > ... > I will tell Nick Dokos only this. Whether a person is civil or uncivil > shouldn't really matter. Etiquette matters but doesn't matter so much as > understanding. IMHO, everyone should make sincere effort to cut through > and look in to a person's innermost fears, concerns and apprehensions. > > I disagree: it most definitely matters and it's not just "etiquette" either that I'm talking about. I'm talking about respect for the other person's point of view; in fact, something very close to what you express in your last sentence above. If I'm ranting and raving against you, how can I possibly look in at your "...fears, concerns and apprehensions"? All I'd be thinking about is how to hurt you. And remember that I only felt compelled to say something when I saw what I considered an ad hominem attack. Before that, even though I most definitely did not like the tone of the discussion, there were reasonable technical points being addressed. The trouble is that when the tone becomes grating (as it did), it gets harder and harder to avoid the ad hominem part and whatever discussion was going on cannot continue being a discussion on the matters of interest. It becomes a "me against you" and "whoever is not for me is against me" kind of thing - there are no shades of gray, only black and white. That's why incivility matters. There are of course cases where no such respect should be given: if someone is consistently making an ass of himself, then shouting him down may be the only alternative. But I hope that we all understand that we are not in this situation here: there has been frustration (on both sides), some of it legitimate, some of it perhaps not. But I think that both Bastien and you know deep down that you both care very much for orgmode (that's why we are *all* here), so it behooves you (both of you) to find a way forward. > If this doesn't happen the person has failed in a moral sense. [I don't understand what you mean here: which person has failed? The same person whose fears, concerns and apprehensions have not been understood? Or the "other"? ] In any case, I have said more than I wanted to say on the matter at hand, so I'll shut up for now and hope that things proceed in a more constructive direction in the future. Nick