> Why is Todd, who was being quite flexible, being criticized for not
> being even more flexible, while Charles isn't expected to modify his
> behavior? His admirable technical knowlegde should *not* be a license to
> act like a jerk. I get the feeling that Todd and others are considered
> expendable by the project, while Charles is not, and as a result people
> are expected to conform their behavior to work with him, rather than the
> other way around. 

I'm not trying to excuse Charles' behaviour.  In fact, if you had read
my whole message you'd have seen that I criticised it.  On the other
hand, it is certainly the case that Charles has contributed much more
to the project than has Todd, and has a much better general sense of
what "the right thing to do" is.

Should he not flame?  Yes.  Can we make him stop flaming?  I don't
think so.  Is it worth it to us to put up with his flaming?  Like it
or not, I think it probably is.   Was the flame completely unprovoked?
I don't think so.

> Wait a second... we shouldn't shoot people down for being impolite, but
> we should shoot them down for not putting up with impolite people.

How is what I said in my previous message "shooting Todd down?"

> It's OK to be a jerk, but wrong not to put up with someone being a
> jerk?

I didn't say that.

> What kind of value system is that? If you have kids, would you raise
> them that way? It's time for someone to stand up and say "This is
> wrong.  Enough is enough."

Say what you want.   I have certainly had plenty of interactions with
Charles that made me so mad I could spit.   I'd like him to stop it.
On the other hand, when I raise my children, I will raise them to know
how to deal with people who sometimes act like jerks but still add
value.   I hope you will do likewise.   This is the real world, not a
fantasy land where everybody plays nice.

If you want to publically chastise Charles for his behaviour, you're
welcome to, but don't chastise me for telling Todd how to deal with
it.

			       _MelloN_