Quote:
Originally Posted by Nereid
Thanks to Moose and Lurker for highlighting an unfortunate consequence (at least to some) of the way the OP is worded.
To oversimplify, two choices: a vague, general statement, abstracted from the immediate reality of any post, or posts; or a concrete, specific example, followed by the general/abstract/up one level/etc point of the thread.
In the latter case, the danger is that, no matter what is written (including the use of quote marks around one word) concerning the intention, some readers will misunderstand, and misinterpret. It may be that such, or similar, misunderstandings (etc) would happen anyway.
In the former case, one danger is that, no matter what is written, the abstraction is so devoid of specific referents as to be nearly meaningless (to most readers), or some readers will make their own conclusions re which BAUT member(s) posts are being referred to anyway.
If I may ask, out of curiosity, how would you suggest the point of this thread should have been introduced, so as to ensure essentially no BAUT member misunderstands its intent?
|
This is what I like the least here... Some of us point out how your posts looked and you jump on the defensive and finally fall back on: how can this be solved algorithmically so that no such mistakes happend again. Well this is human interaction and there is no such solution... there is no way this can be done. However, if you had simply posted a response that said that this was not your intent followed by "I
apologize if the intent was unclear. Jerry, I am sorry if you felt singled out", the matter would have been dropped. There is too little of this in this forum. Sometimes it feels more like a football game with everyone piling-on once a poster is down...
At this point I agree with
Paracelsus, I don't think
Nereid meant to single Jerry out. I just find it unfortunate that it took so much to set such a small point straight...