Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: "Brion L. Webster" <brion.webster@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 13 May 2005 15:26:10 -0700
Nick Hodges [TeamB] wrote:
Ingvar Nilsen wrote:
> So why did you post it then, when you yourself signalized the topic > was off-topic?
Because I felt a point needed to be made. I then immediately set the followup, which you ignored. Your ignoring of my followup made your post defacto off topic.
I set the followup. You ignored it. End of story.
If you have a way of doing it any other way, I'm all ears.
I don't know if this will help, or drop my standing on the Nick-o-meter even more, but it's really clear to me.
There was a conversation going on in here, in this "room", with an audience. The conversation was inappropriate for this room, so you appropriately directed it move somewhere else.
I think the problem stems from using the same post to add your viewpoint in contradiction. That's mixing moderation and commentary. While TeamB is certainly expected to participate in both roles, I don't think they should be combined in the same action, at least not very often.
It's very different to say "this conversation is off-topic, and I'll reply to you there", than to say "here's my viewpoint, but you need to reply in off-topic".
Maybe Bob and Wayne can explain the difference better, or why it's so important, especially on an emotional, visceral level. I'd say it's at least as important as "IMO".
This isn't meant to be inflammatory, but serious. If it was an off-topic conversation, what makes your point that needed to be made any more valuable, important, or worthy of consideration by the non-tech crowd than anyone else's?
Doing it this way seems to indicate that you are more important than the person you're posting against. Or that the other person isn't worth your time, so you're dismissing them to the wilds of off-topic. I'd be pretty offended if it were directed against me.
Maybe it's all differences in the way we were raised. We've certainly talked enough recently about how different people read the same posts entirely differently, with some being perfectly ok and some being terribly offended by the exact same words.
-Brion .
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Ingvar Nilsen
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- References:
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Max
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: JED
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Rudy Velthuis [TeamB]
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Alvaro GP
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Alvaro GP
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: John Kaster (Borland)
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Alvaro GP
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Nick Hodges [TeamB]
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Ingvar Nilsen
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Nick Hodges [TeamB]
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Ingvar Nilsen
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Ingvar Nilsen
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Craig Stuntz [TeamB]
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Ingvar Nilsen
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Nick Hodges [TeamB]
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Ingvar Nilsen
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- From: Nick Hodges [TeamB]
- Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- Prev by Date: Re: Chrome unveiled to the public
- Next by Date: Re: Best book(s) to learn Delphi 7 and Pascal
- Previous by thread: Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- Next by thread: Re: Update 3 - The performance update
- Index(es):