[boundring]

Your "(1)" is, by the very definition of the concept, "picking your battles." This is because you aren't pushing issues.

The whole article is about making a way more important, but also recognizing that valid concerns deserve to be addressed.

Balance.

[jacquesm]

I'm not going to pick any battle. Because I don't believe that is the way forward. I'll inform and I'll produce but I will not confront or invest my ego into which path is chosen. And in the position that I'm in right now I will simply produce.

That's because this is the best way to contribute to a team effort that is already underway. If and when my expertise is required for something I'm quite sure the other team members will know how to reach me.

[boundring]

So you don't report bugs?

[jacquesm]

I think we're done. Your categorical un-charitable interpretation of my comments and persistent use of straw-men in this thread make be believe that further interaction with you is un-productive.

I'm not sure what you intend to gain with misinterpreting what I wrote but it makes no sense to me. Enjoy HN.

[boundring]

The point, though it's clear that you're belligerent enough to avoid understanding it, is that there's plenty of exceptions to the specific point of view you're trying to put forward as the correct one.

The irony, here, is that you continue to explain your position as different from the article's author, then upon elaboration it's clear that you're disagreeing with her terms by some strange default.

You're not bonkers, but jayzus you're weird.