User talk:63.104.174.146

AO
It is disappointing that my actions upset you. Or more to the point, that your interpretation of the tone of my actions upset you. There are portions of your edit I disagree with. There are portions of your edit I support, and I have thanked you for them. There are portions of MOSDAB which I'm a little surprised to discover can be interpreted in a different way to the way I interpreted them. There are portions of MOSDAB that I am not totally comfortable with - that's my problem, not yours, nor is it your "fault". I have been occupied with other things over the last several days - I have not given this matter the attention that I would normally - I have been minimising my input and taking shortcuts. I decided that rather than rise to your bait, I would refrain from a slanging match - it's my experience that slanging matches rarely achieve anthing anyway, and not engaging saves time.

Then, as you got progressively more irritated, you provided reasonable justifications for your actions. It seemed to me that it had come down to your POV vs my POV, and you had provided supporting arguments for your POV. I assessed that no matter how good my explanations were, they would have little influence on you, and therefore I would be wasting both your time and mine to provide them. So I withdrew from the matter. I apologise that my expedience was abrupt.

If you remove this without reply again, I will not leave any further contact for you. - Jolly good. Fine by me.

But seriously, I want to urge you one more time to look at that edit history and try to figure out why I became annoyed ...  - I don't need to. In your situation, I probably would have reacted similarly. Of course, I would like to think I would have assumed more good faith than you did. But I can't guarantee I would have ...

''... I just have this foolish lingering delusion that maybe, someday, a Wikipedian might admit that he or she was being a jerk for no reason. '' - I'm very sorry, but that will never happen. Everybody has a reason for doing what they do. Even "sheer bloddy mindedness" is a reason ... I have explained above why you think I was being a jerk. I have also said that I expect I would have come to the same conclusion.

You're probably not going to be that Wikipedian, but since I was expecting to spend this chunk of time discussing the MOS and apparently that's not going to happen, it's not a big deal for me to spend a few minutes on this other last-ditch effort you're going to ignore. - You were half right. No, I'm not "going to be that Wikipedian" (no-one will), but I haven't ignored your response.

(Oh, and I'm not pretending that I've exhibited the epitome of etiquette, but I was only ever responding to you, and I'm pretty sure I've been more reasonable and constructive at every turn.) - Well, to mis-quote Mandy Rice-Davies, "you would, wouldn't you."

Okay, go ahead and delete this. - Thank you. I shall.

Maybe this little skirmish will at least lead you to review the MOS  - Maybe.

(or not, because 99% of the time nobody cares what it says anyway, right?). - That's an interesting question. I expect it's more a case of "When possible, one never lets the facts get in the way of one's point-of-view". I expect the number is more like 90% - unlike you, there are many who use the MOS as a bludgeon to support their warped view of the world. (It is indeed possible that in my haste, that's what I was doing.) Refreshingly, you seem to use it relevantly.

Cheers, Pdfpdf (talk) 05:25, 13 April 2011 (UTC)