[Talk] Re: [Jobs] [JOB] RoR Developers (4), Orlando, FL | 50-85k

[Larry Kagan]

On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 19:27 -0400, Nick Simicich wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-08-31 at 19:05, Danny Rathjens wrote:
> > Lawrence Kagan wrote:
> > > So since you presume, you MUST be correct?  You have the option of
> > > communicating your ideas without being condescending to your peers.
> > > Please use that option.
> > 
> > Just consider it as part of the primate hierarchical dominance games
> > we all have the instincts to play.
> > Acting as though you are higher up in the hierarchy is one way of
> > moving up or maintaining position in the hierarchy. :)
> > Pointing out other's mistakes is another. :)
> > Refusing to admit you have made a mistake is a way to help prevent
> > moving down in the hierarchy. :)
> 
> A technique I've used here to get answers for someone whose plain
> question is not being answered is to answer it - even though I'm doing
> nothing but reading man pages to do it.  If I'm right, then the person
> gets their answer.  If I'm wrong, someone is more likely to jump in to
> put me down than they are to answer the question originally.  They knew
> the answer but would not be bothered to answer the question - but they
> will expend effort to point out my error.
> 
> In this case, though, "Lawrence Kagan" was doing exactly what he accused
> me of - he was quoting from someone solely to criticize them...

Correct.  Although I would even go so far as labeling it 'making fun of
them', however the major difference here is that the author of the
quoted text probably does not subscribe to this list.  Had he been a
contributor to this list I would have kept my opinion to myself. This
person does not have a name nor a face in this community, however I, and
others that have caught your attempt at belittlement do.  I argue that
your point of "doing exactly what he accused me of" is invalid based on
the above. 

> and he
> wanted to make them wrong so badly that he was willing to quote them in
> such a way that it distorted what they actually said. 
Possibly.  In your haste you must have overlooked the original text in
it's entirety located directly below my statement.

> 
> Personnel peeps and recruiters speak a different language.  Learning to
> speak it is not hard, all you need is a phrase book.  I've gotten more
> than one job that others could not get because I could speak personnel. 
> 
> Generously, you could say that this was an example of that.  In reality,
> that would be intellectual dishonesty on my part.
> 
> Cutting a phrase in mid sentence to distort what was actually said has
> irritated me for at least three elections now, 
You assume I was attempting to distort what was actually said. I don't
see any benefit to this.  Your interpretation is different from mine,
not better, not worse.

> and when I saw it done
> here, I could not restrain myself. 
  Restraint is clearly not your strong point as you've demonstrated many
times.  Restraint is what keeps my words rather polite instead of vulgar
in my communications.  Restraint is what compels me to request that you
consider the affect of your statements before you send them, instead of
waiting to see you at a FLUX meeting to take care of this.

Please don't force me to defend yet another personal email attack.
These emails I write in response are both necessary and a complete waste
of my time. If there's a point we disagree on, let's just leave it alone
unless there's something constructive to come from it.