Attributes (net1.1) Quick answer needed

[Steven Nagy]

Well I hope that I have made it clear now that its only about how the
words are interpreted.
I never had any intention of rudeness, just was in a position where I
had to get something on the board quickly for response.
I mean, it would be complete stupidity to intentionally be rude, and
still expect a quick answer.
But people's nature is to assume the worst about someone, which is what
happened in my case.
They assumed that I was being rude, rather than being given the chance
to explain later when I was back in my office.

I would have thought that a religious person would have known better
than to judge someone in this way.
But then, religion and morality have not always gone hand-in-hand.

 

[Steven Nagy]

I have never seen any posts by Steve Nagy
Try doing a search.
Haha, nice one! This statement is a catch 22.
If any of your other posts were anything like this one, I'd gladly not
have you answering them.

 

[Steven Nagy]

Sorry mate, I clicked the REPLY link under your post but was actually
responding to the one below it at the time from someone else.
Its hard to manage all this spam.

I do apologise for the mistake.

Being as popular as I am, I find it hard to respond to everyone's
comments.
I seem to be the only one here with a job.

 

[Jon Skeet [C# MVP]]

Well I hope that I have made it clear now that its only about how the
words are interpreted.

No, it's also about how the words were put across in the first place.
You seem to be trying to get away from having *any* responsibility for
the rudeness in your first post. Whether or not it was intentional,
your post came across as rude. Not just to one person, but to several
people. If I explained something one way and thought I'd done a really
good job, but loads of people said they still didn't understand it, I
wouldn't think that was *their* fault - I'd think it was mine.

I never had any intention of rudeness, just was in a position where I
had to get something on the board quickly for response.

But it seems to me that you didn't stop to think about how to put your
question in the best way. Spending an extra minute or two on a post can
often make the difference between a positive response and a negative
response.

I mean, it would be complete stupidity to intentionally be rude, and
still expect a quick answer.

And yet you've been intentionally rude since then, even after various
people have said that it'll harm the chances of getting an answer to
future questions.

But people's nature is to assume the worst about someone, which is what
happened in my case.

No, I think in your case you wrote a post without stopping to think
about courtesy. People interpreted it straightforwardly - it wasn't in
line with your original intention, but your first post didn't make your
intention clear, so that's understandable. As I said before, if you'd
just explained the situation to start with as you did later on (you
weren't in the office, you were on a computer which didn't have .NET on
it, so you couldn't test it) and not put on the "Quick answer needed"
then I'm sure none of this would have happened.

They assumed that I was being rude, rather than being given the chance
to explain later when I was back in my office.

If you'd paid a little attention to courtesy to start with, there would
have been nothing to explain.

I would have thought that a religious person would have known better
than to judge someone in this way.

So being a Christian means I can't think that someone's being rude and
advise them that it's not a good idea? Odd.

But then, religion and morality have not always gone hand-in-hand.

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to achieve at this point...
while I agree with your statement (and indeed it would be crazy not to)
I can't see any point in making it unless you're just trying to annoy
people.

 

[Steven Nagy]

Look, at the end of the day I can concede that I didn't get the right
information across to begin with.
However I will always put my back up when I get attacked about the
content of my post when that content was not deliberately rude.
So I also acknowledge that since that time, I have been deliberately
rude.

I understand your point about teaching. But I don't think its relevant;
you're trying to assimilate with a more extreme case.
It would be like me saying if I started deliberately swerving all over
the road, and you didn't move, so its your fault you got hit.
Its an extreme example that really has no bearing.

 

[Michael C]

Look, at the end of the day I can concede that I didn't get the right
information across to begin with.
However I will always put my back up when I get attacked about the
content of my post when that content was not deliberately rude.
So I also acknowledge that since that time, I have been deliberately
rude.

I understand your point about teaching. But I don't think its relevant;
you're trying to assimilate with a more extreme case.
It would be like me saying if I started deliberately swerving all over
the road, and you didn't move, so its your fault you got hit.
Its an extreme example that really has no bearing.

Friggen hell steven, would you give up on this issue. Your initial post was
rude whether you meant it or not and the replies were totally justified. Try
uttering the words "I realise my initial post was rude and I apologise for
that", you'll fell much better. Stop trying to talk your way out of the
smallest issue in the history of mankind.

Michael

 

[Steven Nagy]

Now now don't get upset.
You see, this issue would disappear from your life if you just stopped
reading this thread.

Anyway, I'm not trying to talk my way out of anything, because I'm not
IN anything.
I'm merely discussing the semantics of what has occurred here.
And its obvious that you are not understand, because your statement:

"I realise my initial post was rude"

is contradicting to everything we have been discussing here.
You can't say it "was" rude, because all it was, was "urgent".
It was perceived by some as rude, but mostly, as you pointed out, it
was the fact that some people might construe it as rude, not that it IS
rude.

Every reply to you has been quite polite
and it is *you* who is getting angry and upset

Do you still stand by these words now?

Friggen hell

Don't worry, I don't judge you for showing your emotions.
Its ok to let go sometimes.

 

[Michael.Suarez]

In your first post:

You wrote (twice) that a quick answer was needed, suggesting that your
question is more important than anyone elses question.
You wrote that you "simply didnt have time to test it", suggesting that
your time is more important than anyone elses time.

You were rude to the population of people here to ask questions and
rude to the population of people answering them... pretty much everyone
who participates on the forum.

You can hide behind the ideas that it wasn't deliberate or intentional,
or that you had a good reason bec. you were on a computer without vs,
but you are not fooling anyone. noone has in any way, shape or form
agreed with you in your weak and illogical ways of defending yourself.
The statements were rude, not interpreted as rude, not mistaken as
rude, but just plain rude.

 

[dkode]

You see, this issue would disappear from your life if you just stopped

reading this thread.

on the same note, it would disappear if you just admit that your inital
comment was rude/perceived as rude/ is rude,
whatever you want to call it

Anyway, I'm not trying to talk my way out of anything, because I'm not
IN anything.
I'm merely discussing the semantics of what has occurred here.

sounds like a waste of time to me.

You can't say it "was" rude, because all it was, was "urgent".
It was perceived by some as rude, but mostly, as you pointed out, it
was the fact that some people might construe it as rude, not that it IS
rude.

it was perceived rude because the way you put it, made it seem like
your time
was more important then everyone elses. You very well MAY NOT HAVE
intended it
to be perceived this way, but face the music and admit it already so
you can go on
with your life and stop whining.

I'm just reading this thread now to see you apologize. Maybe I'm
wasting my time as well then.

 

[Michael C]

Now now don't get upset.
You see, this issue would disappear from your life if you just stopped
reading this thread.

Anyway, I'm not trying to talk my way out of anything, because I'm not
IN anything.

You are IN a situation where *many* people are telling you your post was
rude and you are refusing to believe that. It's not exactly a life
threatening situation but as small as it is you are in that.

I'm merely discussing the semantics of what has occurred here.
And its obvious that you are not understand, because your statement:
is contradicting to everything we have been discussing here.

No, it's only contradicting what's going on in your mind. All discussions
here have been about the rudeness of your post.

You can't say it "was" rude, because all it was, was "urgent".

No, it was rude. Get over it.

It was perceived by some as rude, but mostly, as you pointed out, it
was the fact that some people might construe it as rude, not that it IS
rude.

No, it was rude. You might not have intended it that way but that was the
way it was.

Do you still stand by these words now?

Yes.

Michael

 

[Steven Nagy]

Haha you crack me up dude.

 

[Steven Nagy]

I'm pretty sure I've apologised previously.
So I'm sure its not that, that keeps you here.
You just love forcing your ideals on others.
Oh well, go ahead. Better me than someone else.

 

[Michael C]

I'm pretty sure I've apologised previously.
So I'm sure its not that, that keeps you here.
You just love forcing your ideals on others.
Oh well, go ahead. Better me than someone else.

You did apologise but it was pretty sarcastic.

Michael

 

[Michael C]

Haha you crack me up dude.

So basically you have no response to anything I said.

Michael

 

[Steven Nagy]

It "WAS" sarcastic, or you just percieved it to be sarcastic?

 

[Michael C]

It "WAS" sarcastic, or you just percieved it to be sarcastic?

No it was sarcastic and your original post was rude.

Michael