Re: large pool always filling up

"Howard J. Rogers" <hjr_at_dizwell.com> wrote in message news:41ae0fcf$0$8932$afc38c87_at_news.optusnet.com.au...
> Alan wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Having a bad day?
>
> No, what gives you that impression?
>

I always thought you were reasonable- until that message :) <--- look, I am smiling. I am joking.

> >I can't recall you ever writing a message in this manner,
> > unless someone personally attacked you.
>
> I don't know what "manner" you are referring to. But on the subject of
> 'personal attacks', the phrase "actually, if you read all of his posts"
> is in the same basket as "slow down". I did, and I do.
>
> > You inferred a lot of attitude into
> > my message,
>
> I read words. Words have meanings. This isn't a telephone or a video
> where additional information can convey a subtlety of meaning.
> Therefore, the onus is on the poster to use words that are specific,
> precise and unambiguous in meaning.

I agree that "If you read..." is imprecise. However, I did not say "You obviously did not read all of the messages," You took the "If you read..." to mean "You did not read", which, is, er, imprecise of you. I think we are both wrong on this one.

>
> > and there was none intended by me.
>
> OK. I will accept -just this once- that you saying that I don't read all
> someone's posts before replying,

I never said that. Please don't put words into my mouth. If I want to insult someone, it will be direct, like, "Where did you ever get a dumb idea like that?" Okay, probably something more clever, but, hopefully, you get the idea...

> and you needing to point out to me

I was not pointing it out to _just_ you. Lots of other people read these messages. I was referring to some other messages in case another reader didn't see them. In fact, when I wrote "If you...", I wasn't even thinking about you, "Howard", in particular- I was thinking about anyone who may have been reading the message. It is easy to get sidetracked, so I was merely reminding the reader(s) that the OP's actual symptoms of his problem were TNS errors, not large pool errors. It was not meant to disparage you in any way.

> that
> he's using MTS in a thread all about the consequences of using MTS,
> wasn't an intentional way of saying that I'm clueless, slapdash and
> leaping to conclusions.

It wasn't. I'm sorry you took it that way. If I wanted to somehow get across the idea that someone was being slapdash, etc., I would either use the precise words (i.e., "You are being slapdash"), or the message would be so riddled with sarcasm that it would be hard to miss (E.g., "And someone said there is no such thing as a stupid question.")

>I'll accept, just this once, that those meanings
> of your words were just unintentional.

Now, see, I read your precise words as a backhanded acceptance ("just this once"). Now, maybe you meant that in a nice way, but in the absence of a smiley, I read in your message that your were being a bit insincere. So, um, thanks...I guess.

> > I simply noticed that
> > everyone was focusing on the large pool problem, probably because the OP
> > mentioned that it was what he thought the problem was.
>
> You should have noticed that I have repeatedly asked him why he thinks
> he has a problem with his large pool (usually, that implies I don't
> think he does).

So you can imply, but I must be precise? Okay. You could have said, _precisely_, "I think that your problem is not with the large pool." See, even _you_ can be imprecise. It happens.

I also note that Jonathan asked him much the same thing.
> That's two people who are not entirely clear on what the actual problem
> is, and have asked him to clarify.

Make that three people- probably everyone else, too.

>
> HJR
Received on Wed Dec 01 2004 - 13:57:45 CST