By using this site, you agree to our updated Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Manage your Cookies Settings.
426,140 Members | 1,301 Online
Bytes IT Community
+ Ask a Question
Need help? Post your question and get tips & solutions from a community of 426,140 IT Pros & Developers. It's quick & easy.

Personal follow-up to "Open Question" thread

P: n/a
I know some of you here were following involved with, or annoyed with the
volume of traffic in the recent thread I started called "Open Question...".

I'm posting this message because, though I don't think anyone was terribly
angry or inflamed, there are things I don't like about how I conducted
myself in the discussion. I would like to apologize for...

1. Being excessively enthusiastic about the new methodology I'm playing
with and did not bother to explain.
2. Being excessively argumentative, and painting everyone else as being of
the extreme opposing point of view to whatever I was saying.
3. Repeatedly dragging out a thread that was probably too much traffic,
not enough on topic for CDMA.

I did not receive any off-group communications asking for this apology, I
just felt personally obliged to make it.

I hope and believe that the discussion was (to paraphrase RKC) at least
useful in showing the importance of thinking about how we do our work, and
why we are doing it that way, and evaluating how well that is or isn't
working over time. If that wasn't the clearest message of the whole
thread, I'd like to assert that point right here.

Cheers,

- Steve J.
Nov 12 '05 #1
Share this Question
Share on Google+
1 Reply


P: n/a
On Tue, 23 Sep 2003 05:53:17 GMT, dX********@bway.net.invalid (David W.
Fenton) wrote:
no****@nospam.nospam (Steve Jorgensen) wrote in
<t5********************************@4ax.com>:
I did not receive any off-group communications asking for this
apology, I just felt personally obliged to make it.


Steve, you're just way too nice.

There's no need to apologize at all -- I thought it was a very
stimulating thread, and caused me, for one, to give quite a bit of
thought to the issues being discussed, and wondering about exactly
where I do draw the lines.

We were 99% in agreement, and I find that it's actually no fun at
all to have an argument with somebody with whom you actually
disagree fundamentally. It's a lot easier to have arguments around
the fringes of the matter.

And I, for one, had fun.

Of course, that doesn't mean anyone else did! :)


Gee, thanks David. Now you've got me wanting to apologize for apologizing
<g>.

Seriously, I just thought it might help me think more deeply in the future
to take public responsibility for some of my BS. I didn't think I had been
really terrible or anything.
Nov 12 '05 #2

This discussion thread is closed

Replies have been disabled for this discussion.