From: Sean O'Dell <sean@...>
Date: 2004-06-15T06:57:45+09:00
Subject: Re: [OT] [ANN] celsoft.com/Battery 0.1.1

On Monday 14 June 2004 13:36, Mark Hubbart wrote:
> On Jun 14, 2004, at 11:48 AM, Sean O'Dell wrote:
> > I absolutely could not accept less than what I implemented myself.
> > Diplomacy
> > is tough to have when you simply don't have the room to compromise on
> > some
> > things.
>
> I think I probably wasn't clear what I meant by diplomacy. I didn't
> mean your software should be diplomatic; it shouldn't. It should do
> exactly what you want it to, and you don't even need *me* telling you
> that. I was suggesting that perhaps your replies were somewhat
> incendiary, and could easily have been considered rude by some people.
>
> You could have said that alphabetic ordering was not flexible enough
> for you, instead you kept insisting that it was arbitrary, a criticism
> which some people found rude. According to my dictionary[1], arbitrary
> equates to either rashness, randomness, or carelessness.
>
> By diplomacy, I meant "We all have good ideas, but I prefer mine",
> rather than "I came up with my idea because John Doe's idea was
> flawed". Which is how your statements might be read.

No, I actually used the word arbitrary with no malicious intent, and then 
people picked up on it's use and started berated me for it.  I haven't been 
incendiary, quite the opposite.  Many people have been incendiary towards me 
over the word "arbitrary" in my docs, and in response I have tried to remain 
cool and explain the reason for using the word very calmly.  When it became 
apparent that I wouldn't back down from the usage, people got very, very 
irritated (people often get irritated when you don't bend to their will).

I stand by my usage of the word, though I removed it because my intent truly 
was not to cause any hurt feelings.  It was just the most appropriate word 
for my viewpoint on being forced to use alphabetic order.

	Sean O'Dell