Regan Heath
You try to wrap it nicely but in the end you just prove my
hypothesis right. The newcomer not only has to know all local
habits and quirks of the group but he also has to know the
history behind it. As a helpful hint you pick up dicebots hint
that a newcomer probably should be read only for a while.
Great. And what exactly kept you away from formalizing that, such
making it known to newcomers?
You try different funny tricks on me, for instance, by mixing up
responsabilities. If this group has rules - which it is perfectly
entitled to have - then it's the groups responsability to make
those rules known in advance. It is *not* the newcomers
responsability to somehow find out about them, possibly by
getting accused of destruction.
Another little trick of yours is, I'm putting it bluntly, to play
the card "We are many, you are just 1; we are here since years,
you are new - so bend over and obey".
Frankly, the original matter doesn't even matter that much
anymore to me. I've since quite a while put it aside as "he's a
cheap asshole with micro-alpha syndrome but he has done very
useful and partly brilliant work. That's all I want from him. So
what?".
What drives me now is the desperate, abstruse and stubborn group
dynamics at play. And no, I'm not doing that just for the fun of
it; it can actually be a useful service (and it does have a
certain relation to the original problem).
In two words: Context counts. (Which btw. is something you should
like as you try playing it a lot).
In this context here group seniority might be a big thing. Or
particular technical skills. As soon as we leave the area of
code, however, the cards get mixed again and who was big then
might be surprisingly small. In this discussion here, for
instance, the capability to analyze and recognize e.g. social and
rhetorical mechanisms is way more important than D skills (No
suprise. After all it *is* a group, social and human thing).
To put it bluntly: Chances are that I can take apart whatever
smart tricks you come up with. But why, what for?
Why don't you yourself just stick to your own advice and assume -
and correctly assume - that I have no bad intentions?
You even have proof! If I had bad intentions or just were out for
a fight or revenge, I would certainly not have recognized A's
work as brilliant and lauded his book. Nor would I quite politely
and patiently discuss and respond to statements that I, no
offense intended, perceive as, uh, less than intellectually
exciting.
Take what I offer. Because it's good and because you will
definitely not succeed in getting any femtogram more from me.
a) Mr. A. did act in an unfair und unjustified way, no matter how
you try to bend it. Maybe what he did was well known and usual
here. But not toward myself.
b) It's long forgiven and I'm in a peaceful and constructive
state of mind. But don't you dare to convince me that Mr. A. was
right and I should bend over and adapt to absurd group rules that
demand inter alia precognition and possibly telepathy.
Can we now finally return to discussing D, algorithms, code and
the like or do you insist to educate me and to continue your
route toward nada, nothing, zilch?
Just consider me a miserable creature and really ugly on top of
it if that helps.
