Threadtiquette

David Stockhoff · 07 Jan 2011, 14:41 · from 2011-January.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: dstockhoff at verizon.net (David Stockhoff)
Date: Fri, 07 Jan 2011 09:41:43 -0500
Subject: (urth) Threadtiquette
In-Reply-To: <4D271A0E.2090405 at gmail.com>
References: <476532.56723.qm at web84102.mail.mud.yahoo.com>	<eb1e17824129d1bb0db2461b6ea9ff24.squirrel at webmail.prismnet.com>	<4D26691E.7090209 at verizon.net>	<4D2677DA.3090100 at gmail.com>	<1E5C602C-616B-494D-9C86-67F8DC838613 at liftingfaces.com>	<4D270C0A.2070504 at gmail.com>	<4D27143C.1040407 at verizon.net>
	<4D271A0E.2090405 at gmail.com>
Message-ID: <4D272627.30608 at verizon.net>

Once more with a dramatic sigh.

On 1/7/2011 8:50 AM, Ant?nio Pedro Marques wrote:
> David Stockhoff wrote (07-01-2011 13:25):
>> Antonio
>>
>> Obviously my comment referred to the text I retained from the previous
>> message, which was below my comment. Did "nobody" really get this, or is
>> this just an opinion?
>
> Of course nobody got it. You said something 'might well be' but that 
> you had only 2 options in TB. As of yet no one knows what part of the 
> text below may well be; weren't it for the TB comment, you might be 
> referring to the whole (i.e. had you said 'That may well be, but I 
> know what I'm doing'), but since the TB comment was there, that 
> interpretation is out. Nor was there any TB-specific thing there which 
> it might likely refer to.
>
> We're still waiting to know what it was. At least, those who'd like to 
> know what you were talking about; those who don't care obviously 
> aren't waiting for anything, and may have gotten it the first time: 
> 'David said blah blah blah'.
I still don't know how you know what others think. But I don't need to 
know. It's OK.
>
>
>> But for some strange reason, I don't respond well tobeing lectured (...)
>
> Not a few people here apparently don't respond well to not a few 
> things and tend to read attacks into pretty much everything. That's 
> certainly a problem, but not one that anyone but themselves can solve.
>
> I still don't understand why you find my question prima facie 
> offensive - I see you may have construed it as sarcasting lecturing, 
> but that would have been a cheap shot. The fact remains that I still 
> don't know what is it that may well be; I now tend to think it was 
> something like '[All] that [you say below] may well be', but for the 
> reasons explained that didn't sound like a possible interpretation.
I actually didn't find your question offensive---merely not worth 
figuring out. No offense meant. And yes, that IS what I meant. (whew!)
>
> It's dawned on me that you may have felt singled out by my original 
> comments on how the list isn't properly used, but, believe it or not, 
> I wasn't thinking of you.
I appreciate that. Actually. I did not feel singled out, but I don't 
respond well to seeing others browbeaten either, and I thought things 
were heading in that direction. I just want to be clear that _I_ 
top-post because I want to, and so further suggestions about that do not 
need to be directed to me. I was also satirically suggesting that 
instead everyone should do what _I_ want, but no one laughed, so let's 
forget it.

Are we good?


---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 110106-1, 01/06/2011
Tested on: 1/7/2011 9:41:44 AM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2011 AVAST Software.
http://www.avast.com

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net