RE: Emacs Survey: Toolbars

[Drew Adams]

> I read these words
> 
>  > Nothing, except that people have been conditioned to expect that
>  > changes in options get saved automatically,
>  I assume you mean _some_ people.
> 
> and saw that things were getting snarky.  "I assume you mean" is a
> snarky way of disagreeing if it isn't reporting a typing error.

No, it's not.  It's not inherently any such thing.

It, and pretty much anything, _can_ be used to be
snarky.  And pretty much anything can be interpreted
to be snarky, if that's what one looks for or tends
to hear.

You may have "seen" things getting snarky, but
things were not snarky or getting snarky.  The
discussion was only technical, not personal,
until your intervention.

Would you have preferred that I write "I guess"
instead of "I assume"?  Or "Yes, some people have
been so conditioned, and ..."?  Or "Did you mean
to write '_some_ people'"?  If so, please consider
hearing some such phraseology.

My guess is that you may have been looking for
trouble, and so found it.  You may not think so.
And I may be wrong, of course - just a guess.
But maybe think about it.

I think/hope that if you reread all that was
written you'll see that nothing snarky was
intended, and there was no dispute - not even
a technical disagreement, AFAIK.

Qualifying the statement to only some people in
that context was no different from qualifying a
statement about integers to only natnums.  The
goal was clarification.  My point was that Emacs
can cater to more than one expected or preferred
alternative behavior.  Different strokes for
different folks.  Emacs shines at that.

> So I said,
> 
>   Would each you please take a deep breath, and respond
>   more kindly from now on?
> 
> I guess you took that as an attack, rather than as an exhortation,
> because you responded by throwing that perceived attack back at me:

An attack was perceived by you (3rd? 4th?).  It
wasn't an attack.  It was suggesting the same thing
you suggested, as a reply to what I sensed was an
overreaction to, and misinterpretation of, the
conversation and intentions, which were entirely
cooperative.

You advised us to take a deep breath, to step back
from a perceived dispute or snarkiness.  I asked
that you take a deep breath, to step back from an
overreaction.

>   Would you please take a deep breath?
> 
> I did as you suggested, and on second reading I agree
> that Robert Pluim's words were not unkind.  They seemed
> that way when I first read them.  Sorry, Robert.

I was hoping that a deep breath and rereading would
help you see there was no fight to break up, and no
malevolence.

Are you now hinting that only my words were unkind?
I might say I'm guessing that, but I prefer to give
you the benefit of the doubt.  And I'm glad you've
absolved Robert, at least.

> You continued with
> 
>   I don't think there was anything unkind in
>   either what Robert said or in my reply to him.
>   Did you actually read what each of us said?
> 
> Of course.  But only the parts that I cited.
> 
> I didn't read the whole messages, or any of the whole messages in that
> subthread, because I'm not participating in discussing that particular
> question.

We were interested in the question, even if you were
not.  It kind of feels like you weighed in as a
referee of sorts in what you thought was a personal
dispute.  A referee really owes it to all to follow
the action before judging.  Not doing so isn't fair.

> If I wanted to participate, I'd have to read the
> points made about it.  I decided it was easier
> just to say nothing about it.

That was what I guessed might have been the case.  It
can be easy (for anyone) to misinterpret something out
of context.  And then reacting to that can easily be
unfair.  Context is important.

> > The point of my emphasis on "some" was elaborated
> > in the rest of what I said,
> 
> I'm sure it was.  But I'm talking about the attack (against Robert)
> that I perceived in the first line.  Not about the substantive point
> it was the start of.

I hope I've made it clear now, and that by rereading
you'll understand there was no attack anywhere.

Along with deep breaths, please allow me to suggest /
prescribe (all) giving each other the _benefit of the
doubt_.  That can often go a long way toward avoiding
negative misunderstanding.

___

 Half of the people can be part right all of the time,
 Some of the people can be all right part of the time.
 But all the people can't be all right all the time
 I think Abraham Lincoln said that.
 "I'll let you be in my dreams if I can be in yours,"
 I said that.

   - R. Zimmerman