3 ms·

>Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I feel like it's common courtesy to respond to any genuine communication irrespective of who it's from. No one is obligated

>Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I feel like it's common courtesy to respond to any genuine communication irrespective of who it's from. No one is obligated to interact with anyone. It takes a special level of entitlement to send someone an unsolicited communication then get angry if they are not interested in replying. Also, a business communication is not "genuine". You're only interacting for your benefit.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago
But AndrewKemendo isn't saying that he is obligated. He said it's common courtesy, which is not the same thing. And he never said that the recruiters will get angry if he doesn't. So you're arguing against something other than what he said. > Also, a business communication is not "genuine". You're only interacting for your benefit. Fine, but it still may be to your benefit to interact with courtesy, rather than as a selfish jerk. It may be in your interest 20 years from now rather than today, but it still may be in your interest. And this cuts both ways. I keep a file of recruiters who are decent (decent recruiters, and decent in how they treat people). When I need a recruiter, I'll pull out that file. It may be ten years since they demonstrated their decency, but they'll get my call.
- greggarious 8y ago
  >But AndrewKemendo isn't saying that he is obligated. He said it's common courtesy, which is not the same thing. But later on in your reply, yourself say "it still may be to your benefit to interact with courtesy, rather than as a selfish jerk. It may be in your interest 20 years from now rather than today, but it still may be in your interest." So basically, you're saying if someone doesn't reply to an unsolicited recruiting email, that recruiter may hold onto a grudge for multiple decades. That certainly sounds like the parent is describing an interaction where the sender feels there is an obligation to respond to me.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    Please don't put words in my mouth. I am capable of speaking for myself. Turning to the substance of your reply: I view "obligated" as meaning a moral duty, or at least a societal "should". That's different from "it would benefit me". Obligations, in fact, are often things that don't benefit you, but that you have to do anyway.
    - greggarious 8y ago
      > Please don't put words in my mouth. I am capable of speaking for myself. Quoting someone's reply is a normal part of internet discussions. Deal with it. > I view "obligated" as meaning a moral duty, or at least a societal "should". That's different from "it would benefit me". Obligations, in fact, are often things that don't benefit you, but that you have to do anyway. Actually, you know what? You're right... obligation isn't the right phrasing here. Entitlement is. You feel you're entitled to a reply, and will throw a temper tantrum if you don't get one.

AnimalMuppet 8y ago

But AndrewKemendo isn't saying that he is obligated. He said it's common courtesy, which is not the same thing. And he never said that the recruiters will get angry if he doesn't. So you're arguing against something other than what he said. > Also, a business communication is not "genuine". You're only interacting for your benefit. Fine, but it still may be to your benefit to interact with courtesy, rather than as a selfish jerk. It may be in your interest 20 years from now rather than today, but it still may be in your interest. And this cuts both ways. I keep a file of recruiters who are decent (decent recruiters, and decent in how they treat people). When I need a recruiter, I'll pull out that file. It may be ten years since they demonstrated their decency, but they'll get my call.

greggarious 8y ago
>But AndrewKemendo isn't saying that he is obligated. He said it's common courtesy, which is not the same thing. But later on in your reply, yourself say "it still may be to your benefit to interact with courtesy, rather than as a selfish jerk. It may be in your interest 20 years from now rather than today, but it still may be in your interest." So basically, you're saying if someone doesn't reply to an unsolicited recruiting email, that recruiter may hold onto a grudge for multiple decades. That certainly sounds like the parent is describing an interaction where the sender feels there is an obligation to respond to me.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  Please don't put words in my mouth. I am capable of speaking for myself. Turning to the substance of your reply: I view "obligated" as meaning a moral duty, or at least a societal "should". That's different from "it would benefit me". Obligations, in fact, are often things that don't benefit you, but that you have to do anyway.
  - greggarious 8y ago
    > Please don't put words in my mouth. I am capable of speaking for myself. Quoting someone's reply is a normal part of internet discussions. Deal with it. > I view "obligated" as meaning a moral duty, or at least a societal "should". That's different from "it would benefit me". Obligations, in fact, are often things that don't benefit you, but that you have to do anyway. Actually, you know what? You're right... obligation isn't the right phrasing here. Entitlement is. You feel you're entitled to a reply, and will throw a temper tantrum if you don't get one.