Board index » delphi » Re: Stop the negativism!

Re: Stop the negativism!


2006-10-18 11:59:25 AM
delphi168
"Q Correll" <XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes
Quote
Dennis,

| I couldn't part with my Turbo Assembler package. Still got it.

I still have both the one I originally had installed (no longer on a
system, though) as well as the uninstalled package. Are we relics?

No just sentimental packrats.
-d
 
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

Dennis,
| No just sentimental packrats.
Those were the days, my friend,...
--
Q
10/17/2006 22:05:12
XanaNews Version 1.17.5.7 [Q's salutation mod]
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

Bill Mullen writes:
Quote
You are right - you don't know me but that doesn't mean squat! I
wasn't attacking Nick personally, I was stating a fact that he was
speaking with a forked tongue, period.
Not personal? Uhmmm....
By the way, I just checked in the mirror -- my tongue is not forked.
;-)
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi/C# Product Manager - Borland DTG
blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

"Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG)" writes:
Quote

By the way, I just checked in the mirror -- my tongue is not forked.
;-)
And what did it answer when you ask if you were the fairest of them all? ;-)
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

On 18 Oct 2006 12:29:13 -0700, "Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG)"
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
Bill Mullen writes:

>You are right - you don't know me but that doesn't mean squat! I
>wasn't attacking Nick personally, I was stating a fact that he was
>speaking with a forked tongue, period.

Not personal? Uhmmm....
I am not trying to be personal. I'd really simply like to hear
from you, without beating around the bush or chasing four{*word*249} other
rabbits, a direct response to main jest of Brians reply to the
thread.
Quote

By the way, I just checked in the mirror -- my tongue is not forked.
;-)
And I don't see the beam in my eye but I sure don't have problems
seeing everyone elses splinters. :-0
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

I.P. Nichols writes:
Quote
And what did it answer when you ask if you were the fairest of them
all? ;-)
It said, "No, your wife is fairest of them all". ;-)
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi/C# Product Manager - Borland DTG
blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

Bill Mullen writes:
Quote

I am not trying to be personal.
I'm personally having a hard time understanding how being called a
person with a "forked tongue" is /not/ personal, but hey, whatever.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi/C# Product Manager - Borland DTG
blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

"Bill Mullen" wrote
Quote

I am not trying to be personal.
Nor, IHMO, trying very hard not to. If a person says two things that appear
contradictory, it could be (in order of increasing willingness to offend)
-- that the hearer did not understand,
-- that the speaker changed his mind
-- that the speaker was thinking in two different contexts and was not being
fully consistent,
-- that the speaker is aware of the inconsistency but not concerned enough
to resolve it
-- that the speaker was confused in one or the other,
-- that the speaker does not understand the implications of his own
statements
-- that the speaker was intentionally slanting his statements in different
directions
-- that the speaker was lying.
Now rather than leaping to the most belligerent interpretation possible,
let's start at the other end. What was it exactly that you didn't
understand?
bobD
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

Whatever.
Side step number what???? Again you refuse to address the original
reason all this started.
On 18 Oct 2006 14:57:36 -0700, "Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG)"
<XXXX@XXXXX.COM>writes:
Quote
Bill Mullen writes:

>
>I am not trying to be personal.

I'm personally having a hard time understanding how being called a
person with a "forked tongue" is /not/ personal, but hey, whatever.
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

Bob Dawson writes:
Quote
If a person says two things that appear
contradictory, it could be (in order of increasing willingness to offend)
Completely agree. If you go back and read the thread from my initial
response to Nick, I believe that I asked for clarification.
I admit that I was pretty upset to hear Nick's original response, and
got increasingly upset at the subsequent responses because I felt like
he was dodging the question.
I've let all that emotional stuff go, but FTR, I think if you go back
and reread this thread, you will see that I was honestly asking for
clarification.
The only reason why I am replying now is that I want to encourage those
reading your post to go back and read the progression and put it in
context of the previous alternative roadmap discussions.
Quote
-- that the speaker is aware of the inconsistency but not concerned enough
to resolve it
BTW, this is where I think we stand right now.
Quote
Now rather than leaping to the most belligerent interpretation possible,
let's start at the other end. What was it exactly that you didn't
understand?
I acknowledge that I could have been less accusatory, but I believe I
made what I didn't understand clear from the very start. I expressed
exactly how I interpreted his post and asked for the record to be set
straight.
If Nick had explained straight away that Simon's thread was not
negative, this would be a non-issue.
After several attempts to resolve this matter and enduring distractions
and misdirections discussing the definition of "listening", people
asking me to lay off the "nit-picking", others justifying Nick's
response or those that interpreted his statements merely as "thanking
both sides", I have come to the conclusion that it is just not worth it.
People either get it or they don't.
--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

"Brian Moelk" wrote
Quote

If Nick had explained straight away that Simon's thread was
not negative, this would be a non-issue.
As I recall, you said that if Nick said Simon's post wasn't negative, then
your next move would be to ask specifically who was. I think Nick was wise
not to go there.
bobD
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

Bob Dawson writes:
Quote
>If Nick had explained straight away that Simon's thread was
>not negative, this would be a non-issue.

As I recall, you said that if Nick said Simon's post wasn't negative, then
your next move would be to ask specifically who was. I think Nick was wise
not to go there.
Indeed, and I admit I was overstepping there.
It still doesn't change the fact that he never clarified if he thought
Simon's post, and the ensuing thread, was the negativity Arthur was
referring to when he said he "deplored" this negativity.
From my point of view, there were many positive things expressed in that
thread and overall it was constructive, not negative. So it seemed
quite possibly inconsistent to thank Simon and others for that thread,
and the very next day thank someone else for the implication that that
thread was negative and that it should be "deplored". that is what I
wanted Nick to clarify in no uncertain terms.
"Deplore" is a *very* strong word and for Nick to regard Arthur's post
as "excellent" only reinforces that he's in agreement with it, which
makes it that much more important to clarify which posts Nick believes
Arthur was referring to.
My eagerness to know what posts Nick believed Arthur was referring to is
where I overstepped my bounds, it would be sufficient to know that Nick
believed Arthur was referring to other posts. But Nick could have
easily called me on that and said "I won't say which posts I believe he
was referring to, but I believe the "alternative roadmap" thread was, on
the whole, positive and constructive."
FWIW, there is a cynical part of me that can not help but think that your
reply is a kinder, more thoughtful version of the same kind of
distraction techniques. I freely admit, I could have handled it better,
but that doesn't change the facts on the other side one bit. Go back
and read the thread, remember it is context and tell me honestly if you
would not have liked to hear clarification in no uncertain terms.
--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
XXXX@XXXXX.COM
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

Bill Mullen writes:
Quote
Side step number what???? Again you refuse to address the original
reason all this started.
At this point, I confess I have no idea what I am allegedly
sidestepping.
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi/C# Product Manager - Borland DTG
blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

Brian Moelk writes:
Quote
That's what I
wanted Nick to clarify in no uncertain terms.
<sigh>
I've tried to avoid all of this, but since you and Bill Mullin seem
unwilling to let this go, and more than willing to try to beat this
dead horse, I will say this:
I appreciate very much Simon's alternate roadmap and the effort that
was put into it.
In my opinion, some of the people that responded to and discussed
Simon's roadmap were negative and somewhat unpleasant.
Now, can we just drop this whole thing?
--
Nick Hodges
Delphi/C# Product Manager - Borland DTG
blogs.borland.com/nickhodges
 

Re: Stop the negativism!

Nick Hodges (Borland/DTG) writes:
Quote
Now, can we just drop this whole thing?
Yes, thank you.
--
Brian Moelk
Brain Endeavor LLC
XXXX@XXXXX.COM