On 01-Jun-2014 22:46 -0500, Vernon Hamberg wrote:
Oh well, I just decide to do what I do, and although I agree that
more information would be nice, I also have responded to this OP
enough in the past to have an idea, at least sufficient for me.
In fact, I asked him a question first.
Or her. And I saw that. But I chose to [sparsely] answer the
question by the OP, along with some near-chiding banter; then ask a
question about your comment with some additional banter.
We handle things differently, you and I - and that has to be OK, as
we are all different people.
I prefer not to get into too much around HOW people should ask, I
guess - as to whether any responses were "...useless banter...", I
won't judge that one.
I was purposefully calling my own responses "useless banter", because
when an OP establishes a somewhat completely described scenario, there
are not typically a slew of responses making excruciating attempts at
extracting the necessary details that were omitted. But with a poorly
or otherwise incompletely described scenario, there are typically a slew
of torturous responses either attempting divine what possibly the OP had
intended or making many false assumptions that the OP then has to rebuke
[as if they should have been understood]. And I am purposely responding
again, just to continue this worthless thread with even more useless
banter... because I am in a weird mood :-)
And with that I'd best be quiet, methinks - I'm probably in too bad a
state to begin to be cordial!!
Oh please do express your true thoughts, but I implore... only
*after* reviewing the archived past topic
> from the
same OP :-)
And I still wish this poster would reveal his true identity!!
No reason really, IMO, to know a name\identity; any pseudonym
suffices for me, because while I know [or so my NewsReader tells me]
that "Vern Hamberg wrote:", I do not know for example, that is your
"true identity". Besides, I detest personally addressed responses in a
public forum, thus I would have no reason to know any identity [other
than an attribution; mostly to locate any trimmed quoted text]. IMO all
responses should be directed as a reply to the question, not as a reply
to the questioner, in the spirit of a public discussion. The
attribution of the quoted reply is sufficient identifiable information,
and the additional personalization of addressing the individual
associated with that /persona/ makes the discussion appear to be a
private between two individuals where everyone else has become in a
But if someone insists on addressing the author with a name other
than HotelTravelFun or HotelTravelFunDotCom, they could try using one of
the many various signatures used for posts using that email moniker in
the past; among them: (Phil, JN, Charles, Phil Kestenbaum, JT). No
matter which, given they apparently have not finalized on a moniker to
use, other than the email and subscription identities.