> Assume that I'm not. (I'm not, and it seems surprising to me that it seems that way.) Fine - maybe I misread simple annoyance as personal offense. > I'm jus

> Assume that I'm not. (I'm not, and it seems surprising to me that it seems that way.) Fine - maybe I misread simple annoyance as personal offense. > I'm just not interested in any discussion about the other things you've mentioned: usernames not recognized, who was talking to whom, advice about improving my situation, and so on. What I said wasn't really about any of those things, so let me try again. Your response here > > Just because you don't understand the necessity of middle management or "paper pushers" doesn't mean they're not necessary. > This is presumptuous. Having worked in groups where I understood my job and the jobs of my coworkers who held the same position as me at least as well as they understood their jobs themselves: unnecessary paper pushers exist. struck me as a thoroughly unproductive way to debate. You made a bare claim to have seen something that others allege to be rare. Obviously the fact that you have seen it is enough evidence for you, but it shouldn't move the needle on anyone else's state of belief. Therefore, IMHO, it's not a useful contribution. When I said improve the situation, I was not giving "advice about improving [your] situation"; I meant improving the quality of discussion. [tone edited]