| 1 |
On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 11:47:01 -0500 |
| 2 |
Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 3 |
|
| 4 |
> On Wed, Nov 18, 2015 at 10:10 AM, Brian Dolbec <dolsen@g.o> |
| 5 |
> wrote: |
| 6 |
> > On Wed, 18 Nov 2015 06:59:19 -0500 |
| 7 |
> > Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> wrote: |
| 8 |
|
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> It is a bit ironic that you chose this as the part to quote when |
| 11 |
> adding a snide remark. My whole point was that we shouldn't |
| 12 |
> NEEDLESSLY drop old versions, You seemed to have taken this as a |
| 13 |
> complaint about dropping old versions when there is a valid reason for |
| 14 |
> doing so. |
| 15 |
> |
| 16 |
> Your tone here is anything but helpful. My intent was really to |
| 17 |
> contribute to the discussion constructively and point out a pain point |
| 18 |
> for people running mixed-keywords. Perhaps I didn't explain my point |
| 19 |
> as well as I could have. When somebody is saying something that |
| 20 |
> doesn't seem sensible to you, it is usually better to assume that they |
| 21 |
> just didn't make their point well than to assume that they don't have |
| 22 |
> anything worth saying. |
| 23 |
> |
| 24 |
|
| 25 |
Bravo. |
| 26 |
Lemme think of an example of similar replies I have had to endure in |
| 27 |
this style. |
| 28 |
'Your logic / code makes no sense' (Well logical thinking is a tad beyond me yeah) |
| 29 |
|
| 30 |
One will do. Other authors might recognise their closed minded retorts |
| 31 |
and other such blunders. |
| 32 |
What ever was so hard about politely prompting to please re-phrase, or, |
| 33 |
more casually, run that by me again, or "I need you to re-state that", |
| 34 |
or even plain 'huh'. Alternatively; wtf are you saying? (Love that one) |
| 35 |
|
| 36 |
Let's consider the lack of virtues of leaping to the wrong |
| 37 |
interpretation aka misunderstanding the data put, then jumping in head |
| 38 |
first & retorting to the 'sender' with what amounts to a blatant |
| 39 |
smack down. But, as the guides to use of irc tells us in the first |
| 40 |
place; pure text, absent of the remainder of visual and auditory |
| 41 |
metadata, offers a highly restricted context, highly prone to error. |
| 42 |
aka, text on a screen. In other words, a disaster looking for a |
| 43 |
location. |
| 44 |
|
| 45 |
Oh and dol-sen don't feel you're being picked on. You of all |
| 46 |
folk are NOT one to typically fall over this one. Wish it were |
| 47 |
someone far more 'typical'. |
| 48 |
|
| 49 |
But I stray, NOT troll. |
| 50 |
What were we talking about again? |
| 51 |
|
| 52 |
|
| 53 |
-- |
| 54 |
kind regards |
| 55 |
|
| 56 |
Ian Delaney |
Archives