filePro Resources (was something else)

[Fairlight]

When asked his whereabouts on Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 08:24:14AM -0400,
Bill Vermillion took the fifth, drank it, and then slurred:
> On Fri, Jun 04, 2004 at 07:17:35AM -0400, Fairlight thus spoke:
> 
> > Hey, I take exception to that. Haven't been around the last few
> > weeks like I had been, but I still pop in. :) But yeah, I've
> > never once heard an argument there.
> 
> So why have them here.  That means that the archived lists have all

It's hardly intentional.  It just happens.  It doesn't happen there though.
I consider myself a WYSIWYG person, as is my wife.  We're the same online,
on the phone, etc,--in text, voice, or in person.  I wouldn't have thought
there would a lack of problems in the voice chat, given our histories here.
After talking to John for many an hour, both in groups and for hours at a
time alone when everyone else had conked out and gone to sleep, I've come
to see that he comes across (for me) far differently when you talk to him,
even though I believe he's also a WYSIWYG person.

I've always decried the theory (wasn't it Murrow's?) that the medium is the
message.  If figured it didn't matter, if both parties are being equally
honest in any given medium.

The glaring truth of the matter is that neither John, nor myself actually
come across entirely accurately in text-only.  People draw too many
conclusions that just aren't there.  I can say something cynical and
sarcastic, but still have a laugh in my voice, and someone can hear that.
In text, apparently it just falls on its face no matter how many smileys
you put after it.

And honestly, when reading John here in text, I -still- see his reactions
differently than in the chat room--BUT...if I just use my mind's ear and
extrapolate how he would speak the same exact words, it becomes clear to
me that he's really not being any particular "way", or even incredibly
mean, just as I'm really not as bad as people say I am sometimes.  If I tie
what I know of the man and his nature from hours of conversation with him
to what I read, it's suddenly a different message.  It's conviction, not
malice.

I think more than a few people around here are often vastly misunderstood.

> the flames in them and the archives are a more permanent record of
> what filePro is.  The archive is a bit behind at celestial
> but the January archive had 1343 messages, while February
> only had 422.

Anything could account for that.  People have busy/dry seasons, projects,
etc.  It may be a partial indicator, but not a completely accurate one.
Besides, with nothing in particular changing on the fP front lately (ODBC
was the last big news), maybe people just had nothing much to say.  Maybe
cosmic balance was being achieved through one of those months where hardly
anyone had programming problems for a change.  Maybe there was a planetary
alignment.  Who knows?  The list had a relatively quiet period (from rough
memory) about 2 months ago and nothing untoward preceded that lull.

> I've always felt it was better to have loud arguments spoken
> instead of written down, the former are forgotten and the latter
> can live to haunt you seemingly forever.

I've always felt it was better not to have them at all, thanks.  I know
that will come as a shock to some, but it's true.  Arguments are a waste of
mental energy, time, and a cause of harmful stress.  The arguments I tend
to get into the most are based on principles.  When I feel I'm in the
right, and a principle seems to need defending, it's far more tempting to
speak up on behalf of the side I feel is right.

Which leaves us with the possible solution of doing away with principles
altogether, but I couldn't live like that.

People read too much into a lot of heat-of-the-moment responses.  The
time delay doesn't help--you can clear up an understanding before it
escalates much easier in realtime than you can with a propogation delay.
Of course, you could escalate it more quickly as well if someone was in
the right frame of mind.  But you also have a chance to short-circuit
misunderstandings a lot more quickly, and prevent a problem early on.  In
the area of time delay communication, one tends (or at least I tend) to
fire as much ammunition as possible to get the whole point across, because
I surely don't want a protracted disagreement.  So in my case, I'll assess
what's been said, consider all possible counter-arguments that I can
foresee at the time, and fire a salvo of most of the probable responses
as an answer and also a pre-emptive strike of sorts, to try and kill the
problem then and there and short-circuit further arguments.  Unfortunately,
that doesn't tend to work and usually makes matters worse.  I either get
nailed for trying to bait someone with one of the extra points I tossed in
as a probability, or I get totally broadsided by something I didn't even
manage to consider.  Can't win.

In realtime, I'm more likely to just handle the one particular thing that's
said at the time, and not have to go through all the permutations of what
may have been meant, what they may think I mean, etc.  And I'll readily
admit to being the type of person that will usually be ready for the worst,
so when you take that mindset into figuring what the probable responses
are, well...I can see where I'm not necessarily helping myself sometimes.

And you and I just plain disagree on the need for archiving everything.
You're a packrat, and you know it.  :)

Yes, it's handy.  I don't happen to think it's -necessary-.  It's a double
edged sword, really, because you archive the help, sure.  But you also
archive the inadvertant BS, and then someone somehow feels some need to go
back and dig up old cruft that hasn't mattered to anyone for years even
when the parties involved have long since reconciled, and confront them
with it, starting a whole new cycle.  I'd say that half of archiving is
detrimental.  People change.  I'm not the same now as I was a year ago,
much less a decade ago, and a few people still won't let go of stuff I
did in '93.  That's their prerogative, but it's rather silly to judge and
sentence someone by past mistakes that they've quite possibly grown out
of making (more or less).  If someone wants to judge me by my mistakes,
fine--but judge me the mistakes I make today, not those from 11 years ago,
or even 2 years ago.

I don't think anyone -wants- flame wars--even those that participate in
them.  These things, unfortunately, sometimes take on a life of their own.

You've mentioned the dynamic of synergy in the past, as regards
productivity and being creative.  I think it also works the other way
around, as well.  I think an argument can become larger than the sum of its
participants.  I think we've seen a fair amount of that here, unfortunately.

mark->
-- 
Bring the web-enabling power of OneGate to -your- filePro applications today!

Try the live filePro-based, OneGate-enabled demo at the following URL:
               http://www2.onnik.com/~fairlite/flfssindex.html