4 ms·

Verbatim, you said: > The social convention is for conversations. > How is a thank you supposed to precede it in a blog post? That's a pretty clear distincti

by saghm 2mo ago

Verbatim, you said: > The social convention is for conversations. > How is a thank you supposed to precede it in a blog post? That's a pretty clear distinction between a blog post and conversations. Now you're saying: > But please stop making wild guesses about how I handle broad categories of communication when I'm commenting on one specific case. I don't say it doesn't make sense. I'm not incredulous. That's really obnoxious. I honestly have no clue what you're even trying to say at this point. You don't seem to want to say it directly, and yet you're now claiming I'm being obnoxious for trying to figure it out. > I don't think we're going to resolve this difference in view. That's the one thing we can agree on, since from my perspective, you're being a lot more obnoxious by pretty much treating people the exact same way you've been complaining about the entire time.

Dylan16807 2mo ago
You took what I said about a single situation and tried to extrapolate it into entire categories of your choosing. That's why you're confused. Don't do that and you won't be confused. I have been very direct. You're trying to make it more indirect when you try to generalize like this. And throwing out "if this doesn't make sense to you", or "you seem incredulous" about the entire existence of certain social norms that apply in some situations but not others, is a bad way of trying to figure out what I mean; it's rude. Edit: An analogy: I have a critique about a type of waffle and you imply I don't understand the purpose of baked goods in general. This is not a good way to converse and the confusion is not my fault.
- saghm 2mo ago
  You're making it sound like suggesting that "blog posts" are a category of "writing" is some sort of random arbitrary choice on my part, and yet you've still refused to elaborate on how or why you think they're different. You're continuing to take issue with oddly specific parts of how I've phrased things and yet continue to use plenty of phrasings that sound at least as rude to me as anything I've said. I don't think you've been direct at all about anything relating to the actual original conversation; the only things you've been direct about are in telling me or others that we're wrong and pointing out the things you think we've been doing wrong (along with a random assumption about someone else's life based on the comment they initially made), and then proceeded to take issue with every instance where someone else does the exact same things. It's pretty much impossible phrase this point because you have gotten upset any time I happen to incidentally phrase something using the second person pronoun, but I'll try my best: when person A says something, and person B doesn't understand it, that's not sufficient evidence to conclude that person A or person B is at fault. Communication doesn't exist in only one direction. Sometimes it might be because person B did a bad job understanding, but sometimes it's also because person A did a bad job communicating. In the scenarios where person A happened to do a bad job, it's pretty common for them not to realize, because if they did realize, they would follow up by clarifying. It's pretty much impossible for person A to know whether they communicated clearly or not without some other person to interpret it, because communication that isn't interpreted in some way by someone else isn't actually communication.
  - Dylan16807 2mo ago
    > You're making it sound like suggesting that "blog posts" are a category of "writing" This is so far away from anything I meant to say that I have no idea what happened. > you've still refused to elaborate on how or why you think they're different I don't? I think blog posts are different from conversations but that should be self-explanatory. > along with a random assumption about someone else's life based on the comment they initially made "Bad day or something" is suggesting they're being too harsh. It's not suggesting they fail to understand the situation, the way you did with me. > I don't think you've been direct at all about anything relating to the actual original conversation; the only things you've been direct about are in telling me or others that we're wrong and pointing out the things you think we've been doing wrong What do you want me to be more direct about? The answer to whether I understand these broad categories of social norms exist is yes. I just don't think the blog post falls into the category where you need a thank you first. Is there anything else you want to ask? I don't think I can say anything useful about your last paragraph.
    - saghm 2mo ago
      No, I don't think I have anything else to ask you, because I'm honestly still struggling to understand any sort of consistency between what you've said overall. I still maintain that your initial comment was telling someone else they were wrong and that you haven't given any explanation that makes sense to me about why other than just asserting it as self-evidently true. Looking back though before writing this comment, I did notice that the comment seems to have been flagged, and that doesn't seem necessary to me. On the off chance that it might have been a factor in your subsequent responses, I went ahead and vouched for it because I think I would be frustrated if I were flagged for a comment that was similarly benign (even if it was wrong).

by saghm 2mo ago

Dylan16807 2mo ago

You took what I said about a single situation and tried to extrapolate it into entire categories of your choosing. That's why you're confused. Don't do that and you won't be confused. I have been very direct. You're trying to make it more indirect when you try to generalize like this. And throwing out "if this doesn't make sense to you", or "you seem incredulous" about the entire existence of certain social norms that apply in some situations but not others, is a bad way of trying to figure out what I mean; it's rude. Edit: An analogy: I have a critique about a type of waffle and you imply I don't understand the purpose of baked goods in general. This is not a good way to converse and the confusion is not my fault.

saghm 2mo ago
You're making it sound like suggesting that "blog posts" are a category of "writing" is some sort of random arbitrary choice on my part, and yet you've still refused to elaborate on how or why you think they're different. You're continuing to take issue with oddly specific parts of how I've phrased things and yet continue to use plenty of phrasings that sound at least as rude to me as anything I've said. I don't think you've been direct at all about anything relating to the actual original conversation; the only things you've been direct about are in telling me or others that we're wrong and pointing out the things you think we've been doing wrong (along with a random assumption about someone else's life based on the comment they initially made), and then proceeded to take issue with every instance where someone else does the exact same things. It's pretty much impossible phrase this point because you have gotten upset any time I happen to incidentally phrase something using the second person pronoun, but I'll try my best: when person A says something, and person B doesn't understand it, that's not sufficient evidence to conclude that person A or person B is at fault. Communication doesn't exist in only one direction. Sometimes it might be because person B did a bad job understanding, but sometimes it's also because person A did a bad job communicating. In the scenarios where person A happened to do a bad job, it's pretty common for them not to realize, because if they did realize, they would follow up by clarifying. It's pretty much impossible for person A to know whether they communicated clearly or not without some other person to interpret it, because communication that isn't interpreted in some way by someone else isn't actually communication.
- Dylan16807 2mo ago
  > You're making it sound like suggesting that "blog posts" are a category of "writing" This is so far away from anything I meant to say that I have no idea what happened. > you've still refused to elaborate on how or why you think they're different I don't? I think blog posts are different from conversations but that should be self-explanatory. > along with a random assumption about someone else's life based on the comment they initially made "Bad day or something" is suggesting they're being too harsh. It's not suggesting they fail to understand the situation, the way you did with me. > I don't think you've been direct at all about anything relating to the actual original conversation; the only things you've been direct about are in telling me or others that we're wrong and pointing out the things you think we've been doing wrong What do you want me to be more direct about? The answer to whether I understand these broad categories of social norms exist is yes. I just don't think the blog post falls into the category where you need a thank you first. Is there anything else you want to ask? I don't think I can say anything useful about your last paragraph.
  - saghm 2mo ago
    No, I don't think I have anything else to ask you, because I'm honestly still struggling to understand any sort of consistency between what you've said overall. I still maintain that your initial comment was telling someone else they were wrong and that you haven't given any explanation that makes sense to me about why other than just asserting it as self-evidently true. Looking back though before writing this comment, I did notice that the comment seems to have been flagged, and that doesn't seem necessary to me. On the off chance that it might have been a factor in your subsequent responses, I went ahead and vouched for it because I think I would be frustrated if I were flagged for a comment that was similarly benign (even if it was wrong).