I think Dale Carnegie said "criticize circumstances and compliment people".
David E Jones wrote: > If it has nothing to do with any person in particular, then there should be > no need to refer to a person, not even in a way that attempts to disguise the > fact that you are referring to a person like writing "Fellow Committer". When > you use those words you ARE in fact talking about a person, and even if you > don't say who it comes across as pretty clear that you are thinking of a > particular person, so it just sounds weird and confusing in a sort of > dehumanizing way. > > Isn't it possible to talk about the functionality and approach without > commenting on people? It's fine to say that Hans wrote this after so and so > wrote that and talk about the this and that and discuss what might be a > better approach, and I don't think it's necessary to comment on motives or > character or experience, whether a person is named or not. > > We're all people here, and I guess personally I'd rather be consider a person > by my given name rather than a "Fellow Committer". If I wanted to be a number > or a title, I'd be in a different line of work... > -- Ean Schuessler, CTO e...@brainfood.com 214-720-0700 x 315 Brainfood, Inc. http://www.brainfood.com
