Re: [OT] Netiquette

[Richard Stallman]

    > It shouldn't be surprising that if someone complains about something
    > you have said, and then you and others proceed to attack them for
    > complaining, they won't want to work with you.

David Kastrup's remark was somewhat harsh, harsh enough that he ought
not to have said it.  Your complaint was justified, as far as that
goes.

However, what he said wasn't really an attack on you, just somewhat
harsh.  So I think that, even though you had grounds for a complaint,
it would have been wiser for you to let the matter slide.

It would likewise have been better, and wiser, if other people had not
responded to your complaint by arguing with you.  They were right in a
limited sense, that you had made a mistaken assumption and thus
reached a conclusion that was a little too strong.  But that was a
side issue, and they should not have argued about it.

Some people, after seeing that your feelings were hurt, responded in
an aggressive tone.  That was a bad thing to do, but I see why they
did it.  Your statement came across as a demand: "Everyone shut up
instantly, or I will refuse to contribute my code."  So their response
really meant, "I'll prove you can't order me to shut up!"  It was
foolish to respond that way, but it was almost inevitable that someone
would.

It seems that both you and others passed up opportunities to let the
quarrel end (by not responding).  If only people had used those
opportunities, we would have had a good outcome.

I hope that those who continue contributing to Emacs will learn the
lesson not to continue arguments about side issues where someone's
feelings have been hurt.  Don't take the risk of hurting the person
more.  Let it drop!