[NTLUG:Discuss] RE: No one notices until I respond -- WAS: Evolution 2.0.2 Email Questions

[Bryan J. Smith]

Kipton Moravec responded to Ralph Green:  
> I guess I did not make myself clear.  I was looking for a "white list"
> rule, ... cut ...

Unfortunately if an opportunity arises, the original question does not
matter.  In case you are wondering why sometimes such answers are "not
exact," this was just another "shot across my bow."

I've been ignoring these, but decided to respond this time.  Sure
enough, the response was exactly as desired.

Chris Cox responded to Bryan J. Smith: 
> Isn't the term "two-faced agendas" and "unprofessional personality"
> likely to be used to just stir things up?

When did I say I was innocent?  

It's like when a kid decks out another kid.  If the teachers never
the first kid pushing the other around day in and day out, only the kid
that "finally reacted" gets into trouble.

People do this to me because they know I will finally react.  They
count on my honesty to admit to it, and do it in plain view.  And then
they know the popular view will be that I'm the problem -- I must be
because I'm a jerk.

The problem is that people can't tell a difference between a jerk that
has integrity, and a jerk that is two-faced.

> I know I have felt that some of your replies were extremely mean
> spirited...

The fact that most of my statements resulting from experience clash with
conventional and popular thought means I regularly disagree with conventional
and popular thought.  I don't deny I can be "abrassive" at times, but far
too often people confuse the fact that I "regular disagree" with a majority
as "mean spirited."

I don't disagree merely to be argumentative.

> and I don't recall any apologies.

Of course you don't.  I apologize regularly, swallow my pride and admit
when I'm wrong (and God forbid when I am, because everyone eats it up ;-)
and countless other things.  But then people "don't recall" them.  It's
actually very funny.

In fact, given the fact that I _do_ admit I _do_ have a problem is a humility
that many other people lack.  One could even joke I have an ego about that.
;->

> I think I would have just laughed off the kill file reference,
> though Ralph probably should have used me in his example...

I've laughed enough over the last few months that my ribcages now hurt.
Seriously.

On Wed, 2004-12-29 at 21:03, Fred Hensley wrote: 
> Bryan, I am in utter disbelief sitting here reading your latest
> vindictive tirade.

That's because I finally responded to one of these.  It's not just
one, but the collection.  At some point, I finally say "okay, here's
the deal."  If it's mean spirited to point out the fact that "hey, I'm
a jerk -- but at least I'm not shooting at someone across the list
hoping they will react and everyone will get mad at them because they
didn't see my shots."

Which is the problem, _no_one_ notices until _I_ react.  That _only_
the provides _negative_re-enforcement_ for it to happen again.  In
other words, the shots still fly until they finally "hit" close enough
that I react.  And then I'm slammed for merely returning fire.

I don't play around.  When I have something to say, I just say it.
I sure wish I would have _never_ questioned Ralph's slamming of Fedora
months ago.  God I really wish I could go back, because this is how
someone's ego gets fixated on me.

On another list I spent 4 years going around with 1 person.  I don't
know what the final intentions are here, but this other person on
another list used to do it and would call for my banning when I
finally reacted.  The last time he did this, someone in the leadership
fired back a list of all the "innocent-looking-shots" that he had fired
in the weeks prior.

CASE-IN-POINT:  You may not like my posting approach, or even me for
that matter.  But don't be played by someone else with an agenda who
wants to take advantage of that.  Because when I finally react, and
I get unilateral blame, you've just provided the perfect, negative
re-enforcement for it to continue.

With that said, this was a test.  I reacted this time to see what would
happen.  And now I have my answer.  The water is too shallow here.


-- 
Bryan J. Smith                                    b.j.smith at ieee.org 
-------------------------------------------------------------------- 
Subtotal Cost of Ownership (SCO) for Windows being less than Linux
Total Cost of Ownership (TCO) assumes experts for the former, costly
retraining for the latter, omitted "software assurance" costs in 
compatible desktop OS/apps for the former, no free/legacy reuse for
latter, and no basic security, patch or downtime comparison at all.