Just a thought that popped into my head

Bill Maltby LFS Related lfsbill at wlmcs.com
Thu May 9 07:23:04 PDT 2002


On Thu, 9 May 2002, Sam Barnett-Cormack wrote:

> I hope I offend no-one, but here's by two penn'orth:
> 
> My experience of AS (as a non-sufferer who has many friends and
> <snip>

> preconceptions, I couldn't possibly comment. What I would have to say is
> that IMO Jesse was a little rude and heavy handed, and I just wish that
> there were a more appropriate way to get across to people that there may be
> medical factors involved in the tone of this discussion.

I do not believe Jesse was either rude or heavy-handed. I believe he
offered it in a helpful (as far as I could see) tone in an attempt to
offer to Ian the *possibility* that he may have been influenced by his
affliction. *If* that were so, and *if* Ian recognized that is was so
(we don't know if it was so), then the discussion that was taking place
may have changed tone. If it wasn't so, and Ian recognized that, then
nothing changes.

> 
> To be perfectly honest, this barely seems to touch on the main common trait
> I've noticed in people I know with AS, but is possibly is. Basically, I
> would say that Jese was misleading in the AS sufferers are not in general
> harder to convince, at least not by much. However, AS sufferers *can* on
> *some* *occaisions* have difficulty letting go of a discussion - and this is
> true of some non-AS sufferers as well, just more often true to a greater
> extent for AS sufferers.

Unless Jesse had extensively studied the affliction, it is understandable
(maybe not forgivable) if his statements were misleading.

> 
> Once again I mean no-one any offence, and seek only to put a balanced view
> into this discussion.

Now, my two-cents. We all have problems in life. Ian announced his
affliction on the list. That made it public knowledge. Then when Jesse,
IMO, referenced it in an attempt to progress in the discussion, Ian
got bent out of shape. IMO, Ian's response was inappropriate when
Jesse's offering was made in the tone that *I* percieved. Jesse owe's
no apology. Ian made it public. That made it "available" in discussion
as long as no rudeness is shown and "humanitarianism" is maintained.

Lastly, regardless of the nature of the affliction, someone else's
problem is not *my* problem. Nor should it have to be anybody else's
problem. For someone who is no different from the rest of us, except in
the "nature* of the problems, to expect others to kow-tow or show
special deference is arrogant and selfish in the extreme.

My advice? You have a problem - you deal with it without imposing
your particular affliction on others. I'll do the same. *And* I'll
be courteous and considerate in the process, if circumstances permit.

IMO, Jesse *was* not discourteous.

Bill Maltby
billm at wlmcs.com

> 
> --
> Sam Barnett-Cormack
> Software Developer
> UK Mirror Service (http://www.mirror.ac.uk/)
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: lfs-dev-bounce at linuxfromscratch.org
> > [mailto:lfs-dev-bounce at linuxfromscratch.org]On Behalf Of James Iwanek
> > Sent: 08 May 2002 18:56
> > To: lfs-dev at linuxfromscratch.org
> > Subject: Re: Just a thought that popped into my head
> >
> >
> > time for me to open my mouth on this one:
> >
> > now as NONE of you may have guessed sofar i have AS too
> > you cant say that as makes people difficult because it generally
> > dosnt, it CAN make SOME of us obstinate but i have met as many
> > non-as people who are just as "stubborn"
> > as for what ian has said about jesse being disrespectfull: you have
> > no right bringing ian's AS in to the matter so i aggree with ian
> > on this one
> >
> > AS causes social misunderstanding and makes it harder for us to understand
> > FACIAL-EXPRESSIONS and TONE OF VOICE it dosn' mean we cant see reason
> > it can make us appear rude at times but again i have seen many
> > non-AS people
> > who are the same
> > way
> >
> > -----
> > James Iwanek
> >
> > ps: lets give up the GCC-3 argument for the moment - it aint gonna get us
> > nowhere and besides
> > it is gerards choice after all
> >
> >
> > "Ian Molton" <spyro at armlinux.org> wrote in message
> > news:20020508183753.78b41cf5.spyro at armlinux.org...
> > > On Wed, 8 May 2002 10:15:54 -0700
> > > Jesse Tie-Ten-Quee <highos at linuxfromscratch.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yo,
> > >
> > > HoHo and a bottle of rum...
> > >
> > > > We never said we were not going todo a proper test.  You implied this.
> > >
> > > hm. gerard said he was going to use 3.1 on the strength of his current
> > > CVS gcc in one post. that does sound to me rather like any testing would
> > > be irrelevant and it will be used anyhow.
> > >
> > > How do you interpret that?
> > >
> > > > Yes, Gerard may seem like he's set in stone about upgradeing, however
> > > > that does not mean he is reckless in this,
> > >
> > > Thats what Im trying to find out - I want to know exactly how he is
> > > planning on doing this upgrade as he currently sounds like he has 'pre
> > > appproved' gcc 3.1
> > >
> > > > > I find that offensive.
> > > >
> > > > Yes, I figured you would and many others would also.  However, that
> > > > does not change the fact if you have AS.
> > >
> > > It is for ME to say I have AS (in public) and no-one else. Im sorry, but
> > > I dont want people making excuses for me and especially not telling
> > > people that arguing with me is futile because of AS, because it is NOT.
> > > I /will/ listen, but I also ask tough questions, which people dont like
> > > answering.
> > >
> > > > You have shown all the
> > > > sympons of it, and considering the nature of AS.. well, honestly,
> > > > trying to change your mind or even get you to listen to what we are
> > > > saying is futile.
> > >
> > > I find that offensive. please stop repeating it.
> > >
> > > > I did not mean dis-respect Ian, honestly.
> > >
> > > The above para. is a funny way of showing respect. Spouting
> > > misinformation about me.
> > >
> > > > Gcc 3.1 problably isn't going to be released for another two weeks
> > > > knowing the GCC Team.  It will at the least take Gerard and the other
> > > > book editors a week to test it ourselves and get it into CVS.  That
> > > > means we have a good _month_ to consider this, just to put it in CVS.
> > > >
> > > > The next planned release for LFS is 4.0 which is a *long* way away.
> > > > So moving it into CVS is not a bad thing, after all CVS is suppose to
> > > > be considered "development" material.
> > >
> > > Ok, fine - if its going into the CVS book //only// for a LONG time,
> > > thats great. fine. go right ahead.
> > >
> > > Why couldnt someone say that in the first place?
> > > --
> > > Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
> > > and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
> > >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
> > and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
> >
> >
> 
> -- 
> Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
> and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message
> 

-- 
Unsubscribe: send email to listar at linuxfromscratch.org
and put 'unsubscribe lfs-dev' in the subject header of the message



More information about the lfs-dev mailing list