Thank you. I extended an open hand to you and you decided to respond by ponificating, lecturing and telling me (and everyone else here) what I should do and what is the best way for me to act? You have the audacity to lecture me on how to judge things for myself? You spout platitudes, make embedded assertions that are condescending at best, and even go so far as to indirectly compare yourself to Christ.
Are you really trying to be accepted, received and given credence here? Strange way to respond to an invitation to be open and honest with a board comprised by a rather tight knit and dedicated community.
Others who are very well known here, and who I would trust 100 times more than a random unknown newbie (who shouts in the loudest possible terms "Hi everyone! I'm here! I'm enjoying you all so much! Accept me, accept me accept me!"), they have called you out for a shill.
Me? My own definition of due diligence is given someone the benefit of the doubt. On that basis, I invited you to share, to remove the ignorance and any misunderstanding, and be open. You responded by dodging the offer, lecturing me and pontificating with high-sounding platitudes.
To me, your actions speak far greater volumes than your words.
But here. Let me share something with you, because I'm really quite confident at this point that I'll not be giving any more energy to your nonsense: I'm a linguist, deeply trained in language and textual analysis.
The rather weird tone of your comments and writing style is pronounced to someone like me. Already I'm analysing your linguistic background. Questions arise. Non-native speaker, perhaps? Highly formalized learning of English, but disjoined, and in places quite unnatural? Tone, cadence, grammar, syntax choices, lexical choices, orthography... Lack of mistakes, presence of mistakes... Hmmm...
Connecting your writing style to the nature of how you have chosen to interact (or not interact) here paints a picture.
Conclusion: I gave you an opportunity to engage with me, openly. You easily could have written a paragraph or two. Said, sure! and shared some useful details. Instead, you wrote: "I think it’s apparent to me that this mountain made of a molehill cannot be scaled to your satisfaction in a single reply." In other words, you thought it a better choice to dodge the offer, and instead lecture me. Curious choice.
Anyway, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I've done my due diligence. I will say that I appreciate you being so upfront and clear in the way you responded, because now I have very few doubts about your intentions, and I have a very good idea of exactly how much trust and credence I should give to your presence here.
Sayonara for now!
Thank you. I extended an open hand to you and you decided to respond by ponificating, lecturing and telling me (and everyone else here) what I should do and what is the best way for me to act? You have the audacity to lecture me on how to judge things for myself? You spout platitudes, make embedded assertions that are condescending at best, and even go so far as to indirectly compare yourself to Christ.
Are you really trying to be accepted, received and given credence here? Strange way to respond to an invitation to be open and honest with a board comprised by a rather tight knit and dedicated community.
Others who are very well known here, and who I would trust 100 times more than a random unknown newbie (who shouts in the loudest possible terms "Hi everyone! I'm here! I'm enjoying you all so much! Accept me, accept me accept me!"), they have called you out for a shill.
Me? My own definition of due diligence is given someone the benefit of the doubt. On that basis, I invited you to share, to remove the ignorance and any misunderstanding, and be open. You responded by dodging the offer, lecturing me and pontificating with high-sounding platitudes.
To me, your actions speak far greater volumes than your words.
But here. Let me share something with you, because I'm really quite confident at this point that I'll not be giving any more energy to your nonsense: I'm a linguist, deeply trained in language and textual analysis.
The rather weird tone of your comments and writing style is pronounced to someone like me. Already I'm analysing your linguistic background. Questions arise. Non-native speaker, perhaps? Highly formalized learning of English, but disjoined, and in places quite unnatural? Tone, cadence, grammar, syntax choices, lexical choices, orthography... Lack of mistakes, presence of mistakes... Hmmm...
Connecting your writing style to the nature of how you have chosen to interact (or not interact) here paints a picture.
Conclusion: I gave you an opportunity to engage with me, openly. You easily could have written a paragraph or two. Said, sure! and shared some useful details. Instead, you wrote: "I think it’s apparent to me that this mountain made of a molehill cannot be scaled to your satisfaction in a single reply." In other words, you thought it a better choice to dodge the offer, and instead lecture me. Curious choice.
Anyway, I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I've done my due diligence. I will say that I appreciate you being so upfront and clear in the way you responded, because now I have very few doubts about your intentions, and I have a very good idea of exactly how much trust and credence I should give to your presence here.
Sayonara for now!
Thank you. An open hand was just extended to you, and you decided to respond by ponificating, lecturing and telling me (and everyone else here) what I should do and what is the best way for me to act. You even have the audacity to lecture me on how to judge things for myself. You spout platitudes, make embedded assertions that are condescending at best, and even go so far as to indirectly compare yourself to Christ.
Are you really trying to be accepted, received and given credence here? Strange way to respond to an invitation to be open and honest with a board comprised by a rather tight knit and dedicated community.
Others who are very well known here, and who I would trust 100 times more than a random unknown newbie (who shouts in the loudest possible terms "Hi everyone! I'm here! I'm enjoying you all so much! Accept me, accept me accept me!"), they have called you out for a shill. Me? My own definition of due diligence is given someone the benefit of the doubt. On that basis, I invited you to share, to remove ignorance and any misunderstanding, and be open. You responded by dodging the offer, lecturing me and pontificating with high-sunding platitudes.
Your actions speak far, far louder than your words.
But here. Let me share something with you, because I'm really quite confident at this point that I'll not be giving any more energy to your nonsense: I'm a linguist, deeply trained in language and textual analysis.
The rather weird tone of your comments and texts is pronounced to someone like me. Already I'm analysing your linguistic background. Questions arise. Non-native speaker, perhaps? highly formalized learning of English, but disjoined, and in places quite unnatural? Tone, cadence, grammar, syntax choices, lexical choices, orthography... Lack of mistakes, presence of mistakes... Hmmm...
Your writing style matches the nature of how you are interacting here. Can anyone say "Heuristically programmed algorithmic nine thousands"?
Conclusion: I gave you an opportunity to engage with me, openly. You easily could have written a paragraph or two. Said, sure! and shared some useful details. Instead, you wrote: "I think it’s apparent to me that this mountain made of a molehill cannot be scaled to your satisfaction in a single reply."
Fair enough. I gave you the benefit of the doubt. I've done my due diligence. I will say that I appreciate you being so upfront and clear in the way you responded, because now I have no real doubts about your intentions, and I know exactly how much trust and credence I'll choose to give to your presence here.
Sayonara for now!