I think the biggest problem is the structure of response in internet discussions. Normally a person who reads a discussion sees several long rants, intermixed with quips, flames, spam and the like. When you respond, you try to address all the issues that bothered you at once, in a long post. Since the thread is usually ordered by time, this leads to the chaos you described so well, and it enhances the ability of the “knee-jerkers” to take over a discussion.

My idea is that you should be able to break down an argument and respond separately to each point. You can check it out: http://arg.umentum.com, or read more at http://arg.umentum.com/about.

I’m actually just a bio-engineering grad student (who loves to argue on the net), so please excuse the sites design. I’d really appreciate your thoughts on the project and how I might improve it.

But, I think (?) your comments are more appropriated appended to the previous article. I understand the comments on this page are to be directed to Pariah’s newer article entitled “Arguing on the Internet.”

I thought Pariah’s piece on arguing was excellent. He did educate me that I need to be more careful to not personally attack people. And, even though I have valid points about his approach that gave me no excuse to mimic this approach and act like he did.

And, as you said, Samuel, it was important for me to “step up to the plate and deal with what was said” and to take responsibility for my actions. That is why the first thing I did after reading his article where he so clearly pointed out that I had personally attacked him was to publicly apologize for that attack!

I hope he found some comfort in that because, after all, we are people! People have feelings. And, I had no right to hurt him – I don’t care what the topic was – it was out of line for me to misbehave. I could have found another way – one that used reason and facts – one that was devoid of emotion – one that valued people — to show Pariah where he needs to make improvements.

Point made and point taken, Pariah! It is important not to personally attack people. And, if you do, you should apologize.

Thanks, guys!
Amy
PS – you got my email — you wanna chat — IM me! I’d love to further discuss!

Think instead of Pariah just for the moment not as a commentator with a platform. Imagine for a moment that he’s only an entrepreneur wanting a good, solid CMS to implement. Imagine that he’s come onto Joomla! without the intention of writing about it and found the poor documentation and absolutely atrocious attitude of the team members to someone who needed help.

If that were true, I’ll bet he’d not write about it; he’d just give up and move on to some other better documented CMS with more genuinely-helpful team support. The Joomla! team would never know they have a problem.

In writing what he has on Joomla! he put the mirror of the enterprise looking for a solution up to the Joomla! team and shown them what the enterprise sees. The team, in the intemperance of its responses, has shown that they may not have it in them to continue and compete. He’s not highlighting any problems that aren’t already there.

Fair or unfair, the development team had a choice: step up to the plate and deal with what was said constructively or not. Needless to say, they chose not, got defensive, and made postings that reasonable, adult sorts should be embarrassed and ashamed to show the world.

Pariah linking to the others to show the same isn’t furthering a personal attack, it’s demonstrating the size of the problem. It could just be a personal opinion, but it isn’t.

If you really want to look at it as a personal attack, you will, of course.

It appears I have hurt your feelings. I have to admit, I am a bit surprised by that because your writing style invites a dual! My comments were indeed, a personal attack, and it was inappropriate for me to say. I am sorry.

But, Pariah, did you see a familiar rhythm, approach, and word choice to my little piece? I attempted to mimic your style of writing.

Your article was a flat out attack, Pariah. And, this was not a critical expose of corrupt business and political people caught in a game of influence peddling. You did not identify scam artists who bilk millions from old ladies who want to go to heaven. You attacked people who volunteer hours and hours of their time over many years making free software available to the world.

When you “count people” and “link to pieces they have written” that support your point that they have not done a good job…well, Pariah, that is a personal attack.

There are many ways to raise the issue of needing better documentation. One piece that you could write that would be helpful would be to interview community members – newbies – more experienced folks – people working on documentation – people in the core team. Try to identify the challenges and resource needs.

I am not asking that you sugar coat reality, my friend, I am asking that you walk all the way around the subject and try to broaden the view. All of this can still be written using your humorous and colorful style. You can have much more influence with that angle – and far fewer personal attacks if you consider your approach.

Or, Pariah, if you really like writing this way please consider using that very powerful hammer you have on the real bad guys. They exist! There are some dudes on 60 minutes who have to be closing in on retirement — get in line there! I honestly enjoy your biting wit and the way you turn a phrase – you are a master.

Both Mambo and Joomla! communities are built on the backs of really great people who believe very much in what open source software can do for the worlds people. Pariah, if you decide to give it another go in a few months as a follow up piece – try working with the community and show that perspective as well.

Now – I want to personally thank you for publishing what is submitted. (And, ask that you please consider editing out the inappropriate remarks targeted for me that really hit the Special Olympics folks – and, if you want, remove this request as well – thanks!)