(urth) Threadtiquette

[David Stockhoff]

Once more with a dramatic sigh.

On 1/7/2011 8:50 AM, António 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