Interesting! From my view the responder came off as attacking unnecessarily and very angry. Honestly not sure how else to relay it though. Maybe it's all just how I'm reading it. Have a great one!
The problem is that he did respond, to tell the user that they were too uncivil to deserve a more helpful response. Not responding at all would've been completely understandable, for all the reasons you gave.
You're responding with your thoughts in ways that could seem calculated to inspire ire and to offend. Most folks don't consider that good-faith discussion.
I don't think you're doing it on purpose. But maybe you'll find more constructive responses if you more deeply consider the emotional charge of how you choose to put words together.
I misremembered: you replied to the initial email and then stopped responding because (you explained much later in another conversation) my continued angry questions appeared to match the profile of a type of angry time-sink user.
trek: "I definitely feel your frustration. The tone of this topic is not in line with the civil level of discourse I'd like to maintain here, so I cannot respond."
Wow, could that response be any more passive aggressive?
I think OP could have found a better way to word it which wouldn’t seem so hostile and accusatory, if they spent another few seconds before clicking ‘reply’.
To be fair, your initial response was not particularly conducive to continuing the conversation. Why would they choose to respond to someone who is apparently antagonistic?
Why would you start fighting and/or feel resentment if you received a reply like the "polite" example? Genuine question, I don't see the issue but I'm ready to learn.
reply