On April 5, 2019 5:47:06 PM UTC, Simone Basso <bassosimone@gmail.com> wrote:
Giacomo Tesio wrote:
Hackers are weird people... ;-)
This is not a response. I have met plenty of non weird hackers and plenty of weird hackers.
As much as you can choose to identify yourself with this community, your behaviour is ultimately yours, and alleged stereotypical community traits should not justify it.
I think you misreas my words: it was not meant as a justification as I don't see much to justify. It's an explanation of my behaviour. Such behaviour sometimes looks weird to people who don't share my culture. For example what you describe as aggressive is my way to friendly debate with a peer and i would feel as disrespectful if anything less challenging was addressed at me for something I wrote or coded. Unfortunately I'm unable to predict if something I do will look weird until someone tell me it's weird to them. That's why my apology stands: because I realized I hurted you and it was not my intention. I'm really sorry for this.
What strikes me as counterproductive here is that you did not consider less direct and more friendly ways of approaching them.
If you read the mail we are talking about you will see that it's not a set of questions: the article was clear and as I wrote to the author even insightful at some points. But the tone of my criticism was driven by the indignation I feel when I read this kind of arguments. Not because they are wrong, but because they mislead people who don't have the skills to see how broken they are! To my eyes, this behaviour is simply an unethical abuse of our knowledge.
Heck, they may even answer you and that’s for sure gonna be fun.
That's what I hope! :-) There's nothing more funny to me than being proved wrong: that's how I learn things!
You May want to read Raymond’s essay on how to ask questions in the smart way. As much as Raymond is questionable, I think that essay is still interesting read and has actually helped me in this respect.
Indeed, ESR opinions are VERY questionable. But I guess somebody might say the same about me as a whole (indipendently of my opinions). Yet as I said I was not asking questions, but challenging answers.
OTOH, I would find a bit wimp to do the opposite: why would I have published my mail with the article in the first place if I don't want to discuss the matter anymore?
I am not sure that the choice of publishing the email is personal in that venue.
Yes, probably it's mandatory. But WHY it is mandatory? Because debating your contributions is a fundamental part of the scientific method.
They will behave as they see fit. This is not my concern. I was annoyed by the way in which you behave and I saw useful to chime in. Some sort of “someone is wrong on the Internet” reaction, modulo the fact that I doubt I will ever be 100% right on any topic.
Well, given that I've learnt something new about this community, I thank you for sharing your opinion. I will make treasure of this lesson for the future. Now... do you have something to object to the _contents_ of my criticism too? Giacomo