3 ms·

He is not saying Michael to STFU, he is telling him that if he had accused his manager of lying in the face, he would have been shown what the scores were just

He is not saying Michael to STFU, he is telling him that if he had accused his manager of lying in the face, he would have been shown what the scores were just so that he would 'STFU'.

chris_mahan 14y ago
He's not? It sounded a lot like he was telling him exactly that.
- wutbrodo 14y ago
  > And if it's not and you believe your manager is lying to you about your specific score, I'm sure he'd be happy to get you to STFU (hard, I know) by showing it to you directly. It seems entirely unambiguous that he's saying "You can get your manager to show you your scores by making enough of a fuss that your manager will do it just to make you STFU".
  - chris_mahan 14y ago
    Read the whole post as a unit, and realize he's telling him to STFU. He's also hiding behind this man's manager. He assumes the manager would also tell him to STFU, when in fact the manager would probably not have done that. In fact, the manager didn't do that. The manager may have wanted to do that, although that is purely conjectures, but the manager didn't, perhaps because it's against company policy, but also perhaps because his manager didn't want to go all out on Michael, perhaps realizing that the faults in the matter might not have all been on Michael's side. So, then, I think Googler123 is telling Michael to STFU not by telling him directly, but by putting words in his manager's mouth, which is I think even worse, because not only is this denigrating to Michael, but also to his former manager, who may still be a Google employee. Makes sense?
pseut 14y ago
Yes, that's literally correct. But I read it as him also implicitly telling Michael to STFU. Interpretations can differ, but that's part of the point: one can be unambiguous by not writing 'STFU' anywhere in the message and since not being unambiguous is a choice....

3 ms·

He is not saying Michael to STFU, he is telling him that if he had accused his manager of lying in the face, he would have been shown what the scores were just

by mayanksinghal 14y ago

He is not saying Michael to STFU, he is telling him that if he had accused his manager of lying in the face, he would have been shown what the scores were just so that he would 'STFU'.

chris_mahan 14y ago
He's not? It sounded a lot like he was telling him exactly that.
- wutbrodo 14y ago
  > And if it's not and you believe your manager is lying to you about your specific score, I'm sure he'd be happy to get you to STFU (hard, I know) by showing it to you directly. It seems entirely unambiguous that he's saying "You can get your manager to show you your scores by making enough of a fuss that your manager will do it just to make you STFU".
  - chris_mahan 14y ago
    Read the whole post as a unit, and realize he's telling him to STFU. He's also hiding behind this man's manager. He assumes the manager would also tell him to STFU, when in fact the manager would probably not have done that. In fact, the manager didn't do that. The manager may have wanted to do that, although that is purely conjectures, but the manager didn't, perhaps because it's against company policy, but also perhaps because his manager didn't want to go all out on Michael, perhaps realizing that the faults in the matter might not have all been on Michael's side. So, then, I think Googler123 is telling Michael to STFU not by telling him directly, but by putting words in his manager's mouth, which is I think even worse, because not only is this denigrating to Michael, but also to his former manager, who may still be a Google employee. Makes sense?
pseut 14y ago
Yes, that's literally correct. But I read it as him also implicitly telling Michael to STFU. Interpretations can differ, but that's part of the point: one can be unambiguous by not writing 'STFU' anywhere in the message and since not being unambiguous is a choice....