[BBLISA] Unhelpful responses (was Re: How would you address this?)

[Josh Smith]

ASM> In response to a query from Michael Tiernan
ASM> <michael.tiernan at gmail.com>, Douglas Alan <nessus at mit.edu> and Josh
ASM> Smith <irilyth at infersys.com> wrote what I consider to be rather
ASM> less-than-helpful responses.

I was going for humorous, not helpful. (Well, except insofar as a good
laugh can help you get through a crappy day, I suppose.)

JBS> "You guys are screaming idiots. The depths of your stupidity are without
JBS> bounds. You couldn't get a clue during the clue mating season in a field
JBS> full of horny clues if you smeared your body with clue musk and did the
JBS> clue mating dance. There should be a law against being as dumb as you are.
JBS> 
JBS> This is not an insult."

ASM> I beg to differ! In fact, it's not just insulting, it's rude and
ASM> disrespectful.

Indeed, of course it is, and the assertion at the end is also obviously
false. The idea was to point out that the vendor's describing a bug, and
then asserting "this is not a bug", is similarly false (if less rude and
disrespectful), and a bit ridiculous (and thus my ridicule of it).

ASM> Michael has a problem, one that will likely require cooperation from
ASM> the vendor to resolve; do you really think the vendor is going to
ASM> want to cooperate after such a response?

I did not in fact mean to suggest that Michael should seriously consider
responding to the vendor that way. Unless perhaps his goal was to sever
ties with them entirely, and annoy them in the process, but I doubt that
was his goal. Or if he had the sort of relationship with the vendor where
they'd get the joke, or something. But in general, no, obviously not.

ASM> It is my opinion that each and every one of us has a professional
ASM> obligation to consider *all* software packages in any given
ASM> situation, without regard to availability of source and without
ASM> giving that one data point higher value than all others.

I'd quibble that there may be situations where our requirements for a
piece of software might include "access to the source", but I don't know
how common that would be.

ASM> One last thing: Michael is "one of us"; he's our colleague, and he
ASM> came to us for help. We ought to treat our customers as good if not
ASM> better than we treat our colleagues, but treating our colleagues as
ASM> poorly as we treat our customers really irks me. Why? There's not
ASM> supposed to be an "us" and a "them," but if there has to be, well,
ASM> why are you treating Michael like he's one of "them?"

I was trying to give him a laugh, not advice; I didn't expect he'd confuse
my comment with serious advice (or that anyone else would).

                                      -Josh (irilyth at infersys.com)