Re: large pool always filling up

Alan wrote:
> "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.

No, it's quite precise.

> However, I did not say "You
> obviously did not read all of the messages,"

That you didn't add impertinence to your ticking off isn't the point.

> You took the "If you read..."
> to mean "You did not read", which, is, er, imprecise of you.

On the contrary, it implies (or infers if you happen to be American) that I had not already read the posts. It is quite precise.

> I think we are
> both wrong on this one.

You are free to think what you will, and be as wrong as you care to.

>>>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.

You did. You "inferred" it.

>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...

You insulted me, and you weren't direct about it. You did it accidentally, no doubt, but you did it.

>>and you needing to point out to me
>
>
> I was not pointing it out to _just_ you.

There seems to be a lot of this about recently. Messages posted in direct reply to mine, referencing points I've made, adding comments to statements I've made... and then suddenly, I'm supposed to be the World's Greatest Mind-Reader, and realise when you've switched to addressing the World At Large or other people.

If you post something in reply to my posts, I will take it to be a comment directed at or to me. Strangely, that is quite logical.

> 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.

Look... how in Heaven's name am I supposed to know what is going on in your head? I read *your words*. That is *all* the information I have to go on. You used the word "you", and I am mysteriously supposed to know it doesn't mean just me?

Give me a break!

If people, in general, would just stop a moment and think about the precise import of the words they use, most of these flare-ups would never happen. Instead of bland generalities and personal bias, we would have precise, technical information upon which to base judgement calls.

But a lot of people here don't. They waffle. They generalise. They sweep all before them in a bid to express their personal prejudices.

And when someone who likes a bit of precision (and that doesn't mean I am by any means perfect in the matter) complains about the significance of those imprecisely-used words, apparently I am at fault, or exploding or unprofessional, or whatever other epithet someone wants to wield.

In this specific matter, it is evident from your own explanation that it is not I that have been unreasonable. Clairvoyence and ESP are not skills I possess in abundance.

> 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.")

Well, let me tell you that your words have meanings even when you don't realise them. You can convey a lot without being direct about it. And "If you read" is in the insulting category. Take it from someone who felt insulted by it, OK?

>>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?

Oh please. Let me spell it out for you. You were rude and insulting, and I offered you a chance to get over it and move on. If you want a fight, go elsewhere.

Thread over. Received on Wed Dec 01 2004 - 21:26:24 CST