geni wrote:
On 2/11/07, Guy Chapman aka JzG guy.chapman@spamcop.net wrote:
i, Thomas. You seem both very determined to win this argument, and very reluctant to explain why it matters so much.
Comments like this are the reason William should be an admin. And probably an arbitrator. And maybe even a vice-Jimbo.
You view not assuming good faith as a good thing?
Hi, Geni and Guy.
Although I appreciate his comments at the same time I feel they were too kind, I think I was assuming good faith. I just couldn't understand the goal of Thomas's proposal, and his vehemence seemed out of proportion to the apparent harm. When I and another fellow had asked him directly what problem he was trying to solve, he didn't answer.
If I weren't assuming good faith, I'd just have put him in the category of "difficult person" and stopped responding to him. In this case, the best he's-acting-in-good-faith theory I could come up with was that there was some other factor that I was missing. So I asked.
What would you prefer I have done? And just to be clear, that's a sincere question, not rhetorical snark.
Thanks,
Wiliam