[erlang-questions] Apology

[Loïc Hoguin]

There was obviously no ill intent in that message. But intent is hard to 
convey through text and people read posts with their own bias, which 
leads to such imaginary interpretations. Nowadays an increasingly large 
amount of people is looking to get offended; that's their own bias, and 
anything ambiguous will be taken as offense. It's a shame as it makes 
civil discussion and good intents much more difficult to pull off; 
discouraging.

Anyway I'm probably not the only one who thinks you're doing a fantastic 
job answering the many questions that are posted on this list, in great 
details, regardless of how trivial they are or how confused the poster is.

Instead of you apologising, it should instead be everyone else thanking 
you for this. So let me start. Thanks!

On 09/19/2016 07:05 AM, ok@REDACTED wrote:
> I have been taken to task in private e-mail by someone
> who detected in my response to the "list comprehension puzzle"
> both "aggressive sarcasm" and "undisguised contempt".
>
> In all honesty, no sarcasm was intended. (A sarcastic response
> would not have pointed to the Erlang reference manual.) Nor
> was any contempt whatsoever involved.  I should not have to
> reassure long-term readers of this mailing list that these
> attitudes my critic claimed to detect were entirely imaginary.
>
> However, it shows that it was possible for people to misread
> what I wrote.  If anyone took offence at the message I
> *meant* to be helpful, please accept my assurance that no
> offence was intended and my unreserved apology for the offence.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing list
> erlang-questions@REDACTED
> http://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>

-- 
Loïc Hoguin
http://ninenines.eu
Author of The Erlanger Playbook,
A book about software development using Erlang