3 ms·

> non-sympathetic I would use this to describe someone who clearly didn't care about the other person's point of view; you seem to be completely ignoring what

> non-sympathetic I would use this to describe someone who clearly didn't care about the other person's point of view; you seem to be completely ignoring what they said and misrepresenting them to be arguing for a case you have prepared a counter-argument for. E.g. when I say "I had a bad day" to my boss & they reply "tough, deal with it", they're not listening sympathetically; when they reply "you would have an easier time if you stopped creating so many bugs", then they're listening in bad faith. > Parsing this, you've subtly mistaken my position. I'm using a technique called 'active listening', where you repeat back to the person what you think they mean. This way, they can respond "yeah that's right", or "no, I see when I said <blah> it could be interpreted as <blah blah> but I meant <blah blah blah>". I think your response is using my misunderstanding of your position to score points & promote your agenda, instead of clarifying what you said so I understand it better. > This is you, handing out a pass for bad behavior to Linus. I didn't say that Linus gets a pass from me. I haven't mentioned any of my preferences regarding specific developers and their aggressive behaviours. My thesis is, "it's ok to call out a person on bad behaviour when other people also show that bad behaviour". > Because "he can grow." I didn't say that. If you're paraphrasing my statement, I meant the community has grown.

KirinDave 9y ago
> I think your response is using my misunderstanding of your position to score points & promote your agenda, instead of clarifying what you said so I understand it better. If you find my restating of my position—attempting to clarify it and put it in context—is "scoring points" then I only see 2 things: 1. Upon understanding it better you find my arguments more tailored to the argument and think this represents an unfair action. 2. You would rather I just agree with you rather than write honest responses. The idea that I have any standing TO disagree is evidence of "an agenda," an inappropriate thing to bring at all. Not sure how a constructive conversation can continue, based on this. I reject your premise. You reject mine. This conversation is only growing thornier and more tedious, and it's only out of respect to you that I have continued in good faith thus far. Perhaps this is where we agree to disagree and move on?
- falsedan 9y ago
  Sure! I do think you are right about aggressive, anti-social behaviour in open-source project leaders.

KirinDave 9y ago

> I think your response is using my misunderstanding of your position to score points & promote your agenda, instead of clarifying what you said so I understand it better. If you find my restating of my position—attempting to clarify it and put it in context—is "scoring points" then I only see 2 things: 1. Upon understanding it better you find my arguments more tailored to the argument and think this represents an unfair action. 2. You would rather I just agree with you rather than write honest responses. The idea that I have any standing TO disagree is evidence of "an agenda," an inappropriate thing to bring at all. Not sure how a constructive conversation can continue, based on this. I reject your premise. You reject mine. This conversation is only growing thornier and more tedious, and it's only out of respect to you that I have continued in good faith thus far. Perhaps this is where we agree to disagree and move on?

falsedan 9y ago
Sure! I do think you are right about aggressive, anti-social behaviour in open-source project leaders.