[boomergeek]

John,

I was wrong to react so harshly.

What I should have first said was:

"John,
.
You are a great asset to the FIRST community and are deserving of great respect for all your contributions and efforts.

Thanks for be willing to put your thoughts down in an effort to have a dialog:
but there are a couple things that disturbed me when I read it.

You admit you were intentionally sarcastic with the intent of deriding the competition approach (perceived in your mental fabrication) of what other FIRST volunteers were using. While you admit you know you shouldn't, I did not read that you admit that you were wrong to use sarcasm and that you will try to react in a better way next time. Because I did not discern an apology, your writing (to me) comes off as a justification of the sarcasm. Maybe it is my misinterpretation of your writing style. Do you think your writing included an apology for the sarcasm and a promise not to attempt to do it again?

Second, you end your essay with the phrase "Don't be a leech". Maybe it is an older brother syndrome of trying to tease younger siblings by name-calling ("You are a blank if you don't do what I say"). I view implied name-calling, no matter how well intended, is not in the spirit of FIRST. Maybe I'm being overly sensitive about derogatory name-calling: what do you think?

The first time I noticed your seemingly accusing sarcastic tone directed at a FIRST volunteer in a posting here, I assumed it must have come out unintentionally: I assumed I must have misunderstood you. To me, your current essay seemed to only be a reinforcement of why you were intentionally sarcastic without any significant sign of remorse nor promise of future efforts to curb it in the future.

Maybe it's all my faulty interpretation- We are all faulty humans. Would you please forgive me if I misunderstood?


Best Regards and Great Thanks for contributing so much to FIRST,
Dick DiPasquale"