Cagey,
You say, I also don't believe I asked him a single PERSONAL thing, you idiot...I asked him very valid questions that somebody else asked first, and many others want to know the answers to as well.
Let's see. What he does for a living. Where he works. Nothing personal there except the content of the questions. And just because you were neither the first nor alone in asking what you evidently consider impersonal questions, doesn't make the questions any less intrusive or any more of your business. Substance, substance, substance--that's what matters. If the guy wants to answer your inane question, fine. If not, fine.
You prattle on about whether one should accept advice from the Maytag man or a grocery clerk. Obviously, that depends on the advice, not the man. Again, that requires evaluating and thinking, an often difficult and occasionally painful process.
You say My point is, there is a reason we have something called full disclosure. Yes, and full disclosure requires a fiduciary duty. No court in the known universe would suggest Steeny has a fiduciary duty to a bunch of people chatting on a cyber-thread. You'd better go back and finish that night school business law class.
On the question of what you yourself do for a living, you say, Much of what I do for a living tends to intimidate peole, so I don't make a habit of publicly telling people all that much unless there is a reason to do so
Intimidate--hmm. Bill collector? IRS agent? Jesse Venture's body guard? Inquiring minds want to know.
Best,
--Steve |
