Thank you for sharing the context. One of the problems we have with written interaction is that we don't have all the information that we have in face-to-face communication.
One helpful approach is to initially grant the benefit of the doubt to the person that you think offended you. I ask myself, "Am I certain the other person meant to be condescending" (or some other offense)? Do they have a history of this? If I respond harshly, will I get a listening ear?
I think Stallman did well by recommending to be kind. We want our collaborations to be productive. If we are quick to take offense, we will destroy relationships and collaboration.
My point is NOT to excuse bad behavior but rather to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions and breaking good collaborative relationships...
Of course we address repeat offenses. Having been gracious initially, those discussions are more likely to be productive. I think Stallman's approach does that well.
If someone has stated what they wish to be called by, and rather than respecting their wishes, you choose to go down a tangent on how what you said is not a problem, then that is condescending, whether you intended it or not. Although I would have a very difficult time believing that someone who did that did not intend to be condescending.
From the context supplied it appears to me that this was a first offense. If it were a repeat offense, I would agree. I still recommend a softer tone. If your goal is to maintain a healthy collaboration, that helps. Either way, the offended party is inferring motives that may or may not be accurate.
One helpful approach is to initially grant the benefit of the doubt to the person that you think offended you. I ask myself, "Am I certain the other person meant to be condescending" (or some other offense)? Do they have a history of this? If I respond harshly, will I get a listening ear?
I think Stallman did well by recommending to be kind. We want our collaborations to be productive. If we are quick to take offense, we will destroy relationships and collaboration.
My point is NOT to excuse bad behavior but rather to make sure I am not jumping to conclusions and breaking good collaborative relationships...
Of course we address repeat offenses. Having been gracious initially, those discussions are more likely to be productive. I think Stallman's approach does that well.