From: jjctc@lhdsy1.lahabra.chevron.com (James C. Tsiao) Subject: Re: smalltalk on SLS (was Re: SLS update: missing make) Date: 21 Jan 1993 02:45:41 GMT
First of all, I think this thread has gone a little off track. The original
problem was how to include smalltalk into SLS. Mr. Chip Salzenberg feels
that it is feasible to include it in the base system disks, while updating
the documentations or urge new users to post to c.o.l. for help in choosing
the necessary files out of the base distributions. However, I feel that
it may be easier on users if smalltalk and other extras of limited interest
was placed in separate series.
This is a difference in opinion. I don't believe we'll ever change the other
person's mind.
Bottom line: Peter will have to make the final decision of if and where
he'll include it.
In article <2B5DD202.8584@tct.com> chip@tct.com (Chip Salzenberg) writes:
>
>I overstated my case. Allow me to try again.
>
>You complained about Peter's policies. It was and is my perception
>that your tone is one of injured complaint, and not of a grateful
>recipient sharing a suggestion; and I resent such an attitude directed
>at a helpful volunteer. If I'm mistaken, well, these things happen in
>text-only communication.
Ah. I think I see the problem. You thought I was complaining about Peter's
policies. And, rightly so, you flamed me for doing it. However, here is
my POV: Peter mentioned some reservations of adding smalltalk to the c
series, as that will increase the number of disks. Another poster followed
up and urged Peter to add the disk. At this point, I see no concrete policy
from Peter WRT adding smalltalk. I "complained", not about Peter's policy,
but rather the suggestion to add the extra c disk from the other poster.
Basically I was asking that poster (not Peter) why smalltalk must go into the
c series, as I see more benefits by including it separately (no flames, please,
since we know we have different stances on this issue).
Then, when you, Mr. Salzenberg, posted the followup, I found the tone to be
quite insulting. I thought I had asked the poster to explain his/her reasoning
for wanting smalltalk in the c series, and you flamed me for no apparent
reason. Now I see you've interpreted my question as a complaint to Peter.
If that was the case, then I deserved to be flamed. However, I that wasn't
my intention.
>
>>Then, you, Mr. Salzenberg, wrote in followup to my questions:
>> "Pick and choose, man. Use your brain."
>>If any statement is 'pompous', it is that one.
>
>No, it's not. Condescending, perhaps, but not pompous.
Not a flame, just an observation:
According to Webster's collegiate -
condescend - to assume an air of superiority.
pompous - Self-important. Excessively elevated or ornate.
Not the same, perhaps, but pretty close.
>
>So I'm responsible for the tone of your articles? Ha. No responsible
>person attempts to absolve himself of the bad effects of his actions
>by blaming the actions of others. Irresponsible people, of course, do
>it all the time.
Again, not a flame, just an analogy to clarify my post.
The U.S. is engaged in a series of military operations with Iraq (no, Chip,
I'm not comparing you to Saddam). The "war" was precipitated by Iraq's offen-
sive into Kuwait. Many lives were lost in the battles that followed, including
many innocents. Although Iraq initiated the sequence of events, the U.S. is
still responsible for its own actions. (Please, no flame on this on c.o.l.
If you wish to discuss politics, E-mail me.)
I am not attempting to blame my actions on you, Chip. What I meant was that
the flame exchange (condescending/ponpous posts) was originally initiated by
you, in my POV. I saw no actions on my part to deserve such a reply. So,
in defense of my view, I used the same tactics you've used. I take full
responsibility for my actions.
Apparently all of this really got started when I "complained" to the poster
who suggested the addition of c disks, and you thought that I was complaining
to Peter. Well, "these things happen in text-only communication." :)
Over the past few exchanges, I think we've managed to develope two subthreads:
a technical discussion of the SLS structure and how best to initiate a new
user, and an exchange of insults and pomposity.
Since the latter seems to be based on a misunderstanding, I've pretty much lost
all interest in continuing it. If I want to do pointless flames, I'd go to
alt.flames. I welcome your E-mail if you wish to discuss the former further.
Mr. Salzenberg, I extend an olive branch to you. I do not wish to continue
a flamewar that was precipitated by a misunderstanding. I think that most
of c.o.l. will breathe a sigh of relief when we stop arguing.
So how about it?
James.
BTW, if my posts sound pompous because of my word choice or my sentence
structure, I do not do this intentionally. Not being a native English speaker,
I often use excessive verbiage (yes, I know) by default in order to express
myself.