In answer to RW - again (was: Sorts (revised)

"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
news:40ddf3d4.115012207@news.optonline.net...
> riplin@Azonic.co.nz (Richard) wrote:
<snip>
>
> Why is my reception in CLC discrepant with it in the real world? I didn't 
live
> in a niche or sheltered environment. I worked with people from divers
> backgrounds ranging from CS academics to self-taught gs with low social
> skills. The answer must be in the dynamics of electronic communication vs.
> face-to-face.
>
> Robert
>

Robert,
One more time (in case you are serious in asking why your reception is what
it is) the following is my PERSONAL opinion:

1) You state as "fact" things which are actually (your) opinion.

2) You state as "universal" things which actually reflect ONLY those
environments (no matter how wide) that you have experience with.  (Similarly
 you
imply and even state that any other environment isn't "important")

3) When people correct (by showing exceptions) your generalizations or corre
ct
some of your errors, you either "change what you said" or keep arguing or
otherwise refuse to simply "accept" that you were WRONG in what you original
ly
postulated.

***

Simply "restricted" your statements with such phrases as:
"in my opinion"
or
"in the environments that I have worked in"
or
"with such and such a compiler on such and such an OS"

many of the arguments that you start (and refuse to accept that you "lose" w
ould
never be disputed).

Similarly, once you do make a generalization or state something as a fact an
d
someone shows you a SINGLE exception, if you would accept (publicly) that yo
u
were simply stating what you know about specific environments, then (IMHO) y
ou
would be better accepted within CLC.

All of what I state above is (itself) generalization.  You HAVE on occasion
stated true "facts" as "facts" and have (infrequently) expressed an opinion 
as
an opinion and have acknowledged errors that you made.  However, your genera
l
(normal) failure to do so is what results in the reception you receive.

--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com

"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:

>"Robert Wagner" <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote in message
>news:40ddf3d4.115012207@news.optonline.net... 
><snip> 
live 

>Robert,
>   One more time (in case you are serious in asking why your reception is w
hat
>it is) the following is my PERSONAL opinion:

Thank you for the frank assessment.

>1) You state as "fact" things which are actually (your) opinion.

My personal style is to be assertive.

>2) You state as "universal" things which actually reflect ONLY those
>environments (no matter how wide) that you have experience with.  (Similarly[/color
]
you
>imply and even state that any other environment isn't "important")

Same.

>3) When people correct (by showing exceptions) your generalizations or corr
ect
>some of your errors, you either "change what you said" or keep arguing or
>otherwise refuse to simply "accept" that you were WRONG in what you origina
lly
>postulated.

If I'm factually WRONG, I admit it readily.

When there is doubt, I used to add information to CLARIFY what I meant. Here
,
clarification is taken as a sign of weakness, so I stopped doing that.

Electronic communication seems pathological -- sick logic. People are more
interested in competition (for what prize?)  than they are into sharing
information and ideas.

In article <40de96ca.156736337@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>"William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
> 
>
>Thank you for the frank assessment.
> 
>
>My personal style is to be assertive.

Mr Wagner, there just might be a difference between asserting 'I have
seen' and 'It IS'.

> 
>
>Same.

Mr Wagner, there just might be a difference between asserting 'I have
experienced' and 'It ALWAYS is'.

> 
>
>If I'm factually WRONG, I admit it readily.
>
>When there is doubt, I used to add information to CLARIFY what I meant. Her
e,
>clarification is taken as a sign of weakness, so I stopped doing that.

Mr Wagner, how is it, then, that so many others add information to clarify
and are not seen as weak?

>
>Electronic communication seems pathological -- sick logic.

Mr Wagner, electronic communications might be just another medium which
requires a certain kind of skill; if that is the case then your evaluation
of the pathology above might be seen as, once again, 'a poor painter
blames the brush'.

DD

Bottom posting

robert.deletethis@wagner.net (Robert Wagner) wrote in message news:<40de96ca.156736337@news
.optonline.net>...
> "William M. Klein" <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
> 
>  <snip> 
>  live 
> 
>
> Thank you for the frank assessment.
> 
>
> My personal style is to be assertive.
> 
>  you 
>
> Same.
> 
>
> If I'm factually WRONG, I admit it readily.
>
> When there is doubt, I used to add information to CLARIFY what I meant. He
re,
> clarification is taken as a sign of weakness, so I stopped doing that.
>
> Electronic communication seems pathological -- sick logic. People are more
> interested in competition (for what prize?)  than they are into sharing
> information and ideas.

Robert

Assertiveness has its benefits, but can be overdone.  This is not an
employer/employee environment.  Whether or not it is true or was
justified, giving examples of personal disagreements in the work
environment and how you always came off best with other people
quitting or being sacked gives the impression that that may be what
you would like to happen here, which tends to put other people's backs
up even more.  I think, not being one myself, that the most effective
managers are those who can be assertive when the need arises, but
mostly persuade and suggest in a non-confrontational manner, asking
for consensus opinions with reasons then discussing the options.  A
really skilful manager probably nearly always avoids the need for
confrontation and doesn't make people resentful.

I think there is great merit in being able to discuss matters of
technique and style while not necessarily agreeing with each other.
For example, in the matter of program efficiency and your sort
examples, I think it is highly desirable to know how to write programs
and systems efficiently at all levels from code level to system
management and which approach is most appropriate for a given
situation. Having said that, some techniques may never be appropriate,
apart perhaps from being a part of going through the learning process,
when I/we/they didn't know any better.

In my experience the regular contributors to this group have always
been willing to contribute information and ideas, when they are not
having a rant <Grin>.  Electronic communication is just another form
of communication, in this forum it is not significantly different from
communicating by round robin letter.

Sometimes when reading a response with which one disagrees or which is
offensive (sometimes it's hard to tell whether it is just a wind
up<banter> ), it is best not to reply too quickly, but let the dust
settle first.

I think you have made some beneficial contributions to the group and
could make more, as of course have and can the other contributors.  A
least it makes us all think about the topics and reconsider our
opinions, even if we don't change them.

As others have already stated, Bill Klein really has made and
continues to make a considerable contribution to the use of COBOL and
its improvement, and really does know a lot about the subject.

Robert Jones

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>Mr Wagner, there just might be a difference between asserting 'I have
>seen' and 'It IS'.

I thought it was understood that everything a person says is based on his or
 her
experience and/or opinion. That's how I take such statements, unless they're
supported by corroborating evidence. Even when evidence is offered, I'm
skeptical about bias.


>Mr Wagner, there just might be a difference between asserting 'I have
>experienced' and 'It ALWAYS is'.

An old gunny said, "If it happens once, it's an incident; twice, it's a
coincidence; three times, it's a pattern."

I quoted him because you value old gunny aphorisms. :)
 
>
>Mr Wagner, how is it, then, that so many others add information to clarify
>and are not seen as weak?

Because they're not on the receiving end of hositility, thus their clarifica
tion
is not seen as a defense.
 
>
>Mr Wagner, electronic communications might be just another medium which
>requires a certain kind of skill; if that is the case then your evaluation
>of the pathology above might be seen as, once again, 'a poor painter
>blames the brush'.

You're right. I will try to write more carefully .. and less frequently.

rjones0@hotmail.com (Robert Jones) wrote:

> I think, not being one myself, that the most effective
>managers are those who can be assertive when the need arises, but
>mostly persuade and suggest in a non-confrontational manner, asking
>for consensus opinions with reasons then discussing the options.  A
>really skilful manager probably nearly always avoids the need for
>confrontation and doesn't make people resentful.

My style was to manage by empowerment, appeals to pride and other positive
feelings. I found it more productive than appeals to fear. When I have to be
 The
Boss, I tell people what TO do, not what they shouldn't do. I've never had a
Programming Standard with a long list of DON'Ts.

I sought consensus on questions of style. Perhaps 20-30% of our practices we
re
the ideas of others, which prevailed over mine. I know, a really skilful man
ager
would have made them think _all_ ideas were their own. I admire people with 
that
ability.

>Sometimes when reading a response with which one disagrees or which is
>offensive (sometimes it's hard to tell whether it is just a wind
>up<banter> ), it is best not to reply too quickly, but let the dust
>settle first.

Good advice. Letting it simmer in the subconscious sometimes produces a high
er
quality response.

>I think you have made some beneficial contributions to the group and
>could make more, as of course have and can the other contributors.  A
>least it makes us all think about the topics and reconsider our
>opinions, even if we don't change them.

By George, you GOT it. I'm not here to win arguments; my goal is to prompt
people to think about style.

>As others have already stated, Bill Klein really has made and
>continues to make a considerable contribution to the use of COBOL and
>its improvement, and really does know a lot about the subject.

Yes. We're fortunate that he's here.

In article <40df23bf.192826650@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
>
>I thought it was understood that everything a person says is based on his o
r her
>experience and/or opinion.

If that were the case, Mr Wagner, then the use of the one might have been
dropped for the use of the other... which, for some people, does not
appear to be the case.

>That's how I take such statements, unless they're
>supported by corroborating evidence.

As my Sainted Paternal Grandfather - may he sleep with the angels - used
to say: 'Never use yourself as a comparative, you'll only be
disappointed.'

>Even when evidence is offered, I'm
>skeptical about bias.
>
> 
>
>An old gunny said, "If it happens once, it's an incident; twice, it's a
>coincidence; three times, it's a pattern."

What did this sergeant tell you about 'It has rained now for three days
straight, the sun will never be seen again'?

>
>I quoted him because you value old gunny aphorisms. :)

I've heard a few, used a few and realised the limitations of a few.

> 
>
>Because they're not on the receiving end of hositility, thus their clarific
ation
>is not seen as a defense.

So what you intended was not 'clarification is taken as a sign of
weakness' but 'when one receives hostility clarification is taken as a
sign of weakness'?  I am not sure I have seen that as a pattern, might you
be able to indicate anyone else who has been seen in such a light?

> 
>
>You're right. I will try to write more carefully .. and less frequently.

Recognition of a difficulty is a First Step, some say... most gracious of
you to do so, Mr Wagner.

DD

docdwarf@panix.com wrote:

>In article <40df23bf.192826650@news.optonline.net>,
>Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
 
>
>Recognition of a difficulty is a First Step, some say... most gracious of
>you to do so, Mr Wagner.

You're a marketing genius. A Twelve Step program to 'break the habit' of fau
lty
communication has a potential audience of 200M in the US, billions worldwide
.

Let's start with bureaucrats.

In article <40e00231.249781415@news.optonline.net>,
Robert Wagner <robert.deletethis@wagner.net> wrote:
>docdwarf@panix.com wrote:
> 
> 
>
>You're a marketing genius.

Me?  Pfoo, I'se jes' a COBOL-codin fool, that's all.

>A Twelve Step program to 'break the habit' of faulty
>communication has a potential audience of 200M in the US, billions worldwid
e.
>
>Let's start with bureaucrats.

Perhaps a smaller group might be more manageable... how about starting
with the aestheticians?

DD

What, pray tell, exactly is a aesthetician?


docdwarf@panix.com wrote in message news:<cbp7o9$lbu$1@panix5.panix.com>...

> Perhaps a smaller group might be more manageable... how about starting
> with the aestheticians?
>
> DD