FYI: Grass not so green on the other side

[gary_c]

DaveP wrote:

Consider it an FYI.

Thanks, DaveP. Before I read Bill Buck's post at the (then) bottom of this thread, I was ready to dismiss you as another FUD spreader just like the guy who spawned the bad-feeling thread at ann.lu by posting "an FYI" about what was happening at the morphos-news.de forum where this all started. (You're faux-innocent information service was pretty transparent BTW.) But anyway bringing the sordid thing up here did enable me to find the link to the bbrv post at morphos-news that hopefully will put an end to this sad tale and hopefully mark the beginning of nicer dialog in the future on such topics. Thanks again.

-- gary_c

[gary_c]

If I had wanted to spread FUD it would have been a News Item saying "Dont trust GENESI!" but given that this is not my opinion nor a credible conclusion to come to please go ahead and ascribe motives to me in order to discredit not only my reporting of an interesting link but also me in the future.

I think if you just wanted to give a heads up to people here about something on ann.lu, you wouldn't have titled the thread "FYI: Grass not so green on the other side." This isn't reporting, it's editorializing. I'm sure you can see the difference. Of course you can disingenuously argue with me about what you're motives were; I can only respond with an observation of your actions. If you want to "report" and have your posts taken as reports, then reflect journalistic principles. Keep in mind, of course, that even journalists and organizations have their biases and alert readers take them into consideration when evaluating what they read.

-- gary_c

[gary_c]

DaveP wrote:

Look I even said that I dont consider myself
a reporter, or a journalist so tactics that work on
Mike Bouma do not work on me.

I'm not using any "tactics" as far as I know; I'm just trying to be logical.

Nowhere do I say it is less green on the other side.

You say "FYI: Grass not so green on the other side". Doesn't "less green" mean the same as "not so green"? :-)

I think you are just trying to discredit me.

Not at all. I don't have any bad feelings about you as a person. All I'm doing is responding to arguments, to statements. What bothers me in these forums is when I read something that as an idea seems off base, or when I read something that doesn't seem to be logical or when I feel some kind of game is being played. It doesn't matter to me who the poster is. In fact I'd like to think we could all have a good time together if we meet up somewhere. It's the ideas and statements I take issue with here.

The fact that you go to the length of choosing to
misnterpret the TITLE ( because as I pointed out there is nothing in the body or my words that could allow you to ascribe motives to me like this ) shows
your desperation to discredit.

First of all, the title is a pretty important part of a post, wouldn't you say, especially when you are starting a new thread and so it's the title of the thread. So when your title says essentially that things aren't so great presumeably in Genesi land (an assumption made based on the subject of the morphos-news.de and ann.lu threads), we have to take that as your position on the matter. Secondly, you quote ADMV's post, agreeing with it, in which he criticizes Genesi's handling of the matter. So, no, the interpretation of your post title stands as valid, as far as I can tell.

In fact your are placing your own meaning and motive on your interpretation of the title
"editorialising" it for your own purpose.

I don't know why you're going to such lengths to distance yourself from the obvious interpretation of the title of your post. You can edit your old posts, you know, if you're uncomfortable now with what you wrote. But if I'm misinterpreting "The grass is not so green on the other side," then how do you explain  your agreement with ADMV and so on? Anyway, what would my "purposes" be? Although I'm part of the Phoenix consortium, which is working with Genesi,  I'm not a blind advocate of anybody's cause here. I support technology that I like and I work with people that I like, but not to the point of being illogical or unreasonable.

But hey, Ive long gone past expecting anything different from you having seen how you reacted
on this and one other thread.

Heh. Comments like that are just funny and only show somebody scraping the barrel bottom for retorts. "long past expecting anything different" -- as if you knew me at all. Please, line up my "reactions" for scrutiny if I'm so far gone. ;-) I'd like to see what you consider out of order.

I wonder if you would post a story on here about
a row in the Amiga* "communities" with the motives
you are trying to credit to me?

First of all, I wouldn't see the merit in posting about a row when the whole thing should've been taken care of privately. 90% of the posters are using second- or third-hand information and the other 10% are tired and frustrated. So common sense would say it's better ignored. Like I said in my first post in this thread, the "row" at ann.lu was the result of some guy doing an "FYI" about the morphos-news thread. I saw no need to perpetuate the ridiculousness. Anyway, if you are in fact neutral on this FYI thing, I imagine we'll be seeing posts from you in the future that also show Genesi in a good light, such as about the Equinoxe sponsorship. I'll be keeping my eyes open.

Nah. You are just lashing out because you are feeling
frustrated and Im a convenient target.

No, as I described, you, as a person, are not a target at all. Your post was, and your characterization of it as neutral news was. If I'm "lashing out" then I've set a new standard for low-key lashing.  I'm just commenting on your post and what I interpreted as your motives, based on what I read. Am I frustrated? Sure, we all have frustrations, but I'm not so thick as to redirect my frustrations into a computing forum. Try another explanation if you like, or let the thing drop. This has become the kind of one-on-one you-said/I-said that's got to be the most tedious, no-win thing to read or be part of in a discussion.

-- gary_c

[gary_c]

As an example

"Grass Not So Green on the other side"
...is relative to...
"Grass Is Greener on the other side

"is relative to"? Sorry to be pedantic, but this is the kind of incorrect wording that I've been referring to, the reason for  misunderstanding. (And I've been an editor for close to 15 years so I know what I'm talking about.)

If you
want a bitch fight, find someone smaller than you bud.

This is just too sad and ironic to respond to.

-- gary_c

[gary_c]

You may or may not be an editor, you could claim whatever
your like

If I said I'm an editor, I'm an editor. If we can't trust each other about mundane things like that, what's the point of any of this conversation?

but firstly this is not an article for a national newspaper
and secondly you could be the editor of your local parish
mag and thirdly you could basically be a pretty crap editor. It has
no bearing on the subject at hand.

I brought up what I do because in our office we deal with clarity of expression all day every day, and if things had been stated less ambiguously in the beginning, things wouldn't have gone the way they did. My work isn't with a local parish mag or newspaper. Our clients include literally the biggest financial and industrial companies on the planet, as well as government agencies -- just to dispel the idea that we might be involved in neighborhood stuff. I suppose the fact that we're still in business (you've probably heard that Japan's economy hasn't been doing too well for the last decade or two) and that I'm still wanted there might say something about the quality of the work we/I do.

As for this thread, I stand by my original point. I don't think Genesi is squeeky clean; I don't mind pointing out or agreeing where there are problems. So I'm not desperate to try to help maintain that kind of image. But I did believe I saw something under the surface of your FYI. If I was wrong, I apologize. This really isn't worth the aggravation. Your personal attacks on me were counterproductive to any meaningful discussion, but I shoudn't have let those get under my skin. As I said early on, I don't have anything personal against you; I just thought your post was questionable. I won't post in this thread again. I'll do my best to stick to talking on the merits of arguments alone -- which I like to think I do anyway -- and hope others will do the same. Again, I'm sorry for any bad feeling I've caused.

-- gary_c

[gary_c]

It's obvious you're talking not to me but to some mental construction of me built out of misperceptions. I've already explained that I do not enjoy this kind of thread and the only reason I'm responding one final time (despite my statement that I wouldn't) is that it is very difficult to let the the thing end with such a warped summation.

I have no vendetta against you. I do not flame people out of spite, out of personal frustration, out of love of trolling. My previous posts bear this out. Feel free, as I said before, to indicate to me publically or privately how I have such a track record of flaming and trolling.

Believe me, I have better things to do as well.  It's sad and rather telling that even after my going half way and offering an apology (twice) that you still maintain your arrogant attitude and inaccurate perceptions. This is offputting, as it is in stark contrast to my other dealings on-line and off.

No, I won't be popping in with abusive flamebait, but I'll still speak my opinion. I hope in the future you can express yours so that it not only reverberates nicely within your own head but also makes sense to those of us who only have access to your written words. But if you don't, I'll know better than to get involved.

-- gary_c