"ryan constantine" <rco### [at] yahoocom> wrote :
> what i found out?  well, i've had family members in newsgroups or
> bulletin boards before, and for a while things go fine and dandy.  but
> if someone writes something wrong or is even only perceived wrong, then
> a lot of people get upset and the person that wrote the thing is outcast
> or whatever the online equivalent is.

    Do you imagine that this has happened to you here?

> i found out that people like bob
> and nathan are willing to give the benefit of the doubt and be
> diplomatic in their responces, while others can be snide.

    Yet you seem to be outside of that group of "people like bob and nathan"
since you took a few words that were nothing but mild and valid statements
and have made a whole psuedo-psychological fantasy out of it. BTW, it is
considered polite to capatilize surnames. If you want people to respond
politely to you, you should treat them with respect.

> i also found
> out that in my circle of real friends in the real world, we use the word
> suck a little less harsh than it was taken here.

    I have no problem with the word itself (however, I suggest you find more
erudite companions). But your use was, as you admit you intended it to be,
harsh. It was a critizism that was undefined enough to completely remove any
constructive quality your complaint might otherwise have had and so left us
with nothing but the implied question "can you do better?" You have not
answered the question but instead have made up this little
psudeo-psycholoical test that you claim you were subjecting us to. Again, if
you want people to treat you politely, you should treat them with respect,
not like high school lab rats.

> i also learned that if
> i have a negative opinion about someone's work, that i should probably
> keep it to myself.  anything else i should've learned?

    Yes, lots. But I leave that for your further education.

Post a reply to this message