Quote:
Originally Posted by Scott Kozutsky
As I understand it, fosters' position was you are justified in being rude(to an extent) in certain situations. He gave examples of what he does. He gave an example of himself being quite rude.
His analysis and explanation was not rude, it was constructive and contributed to the discussion, it just presented a viewpoint that being rude is sometimes justified and used an example.
This is how I see it and at this point I'm probably being more pedantic than necessary.
|
I believe a leadership skill does apply here and I mean absolutely no disrespect to Foster. So much of what as contributed was of value, but unfortunately, the thing getting the most attention is a small fraction of it.
I suspect that wasn't the goal and I know people fall into this communications trap all the time (I myself fall into it). I am not writing that the ends justify the means, but in this case this is turning the burden of the reader to not inflate this detail into the burden of the writer. The question is if we filter off the distraction are we hurting the value of the message for the writer?
I suppose the risk from this extra sensational detail is high because Foster is presumed to be arguing from authority. However everyone is human. Authority doesn't make anyone perfect. I do not think Foster intended any harm here. On the other hand the community has apparently decided on some improvement so Foster is caught in that shift.