R.Stuart-Congrats! You Just Won a Scholarship to a School of Etiquette
Your post on Oct 20 1997 6:40PM EST (to which this is the reply from me you invited), to be viewed in its best light, must be seen as a tacit admission of your apparent, unmitigated ignorance of the social graces.
Lets review the situation:
A) Steve Bergman provided me with pertinent information relative to a line of discussion on the thread, as well as other information.
B) You personally have not demonstrated that you have any information, insights or experience concerning CCEE that would be particularity valuable or needed by any actual or potential investor; hence you can only be classified as a member of the audience and a kibitzer rather than a contributor.
C) As a mere member of the audience, whatever information a contributor such as Steve Bergman provides to you is gratuitous* [SEE FOOTNOTES BELOW]
In other words, when information, directly or indirectly is provided on this thread about CCEE by Steve Bergman, and then makes its way into your brain, you neither paid for it, nor did you do anything for Steve Bergman's benefit from which it could even be argued that you deserved the effort he extended from which you derived a benefit.
D) In modern day America, it is commonly accepted as proper etiquette for one who is purely a taker (such as you) to show gratitude and respect to his donor; and it is boorish, rude and juvenile for such a taker who knows the proper etiquette, to disregard it.
E) Far be it for me to label you as boorish, rude and juvenile. Rather I will assume you did not what the proper etiquette was when you posted your offensive missive on Oct 20 1997 6:40PM EST.
F) You take the words of my post, and ask me, <<"CRITICIZE OR MOCK?? are you dropping acid??">>
Let us then look at what you wrote here on this thread at exchange2000.com immediately after I informed you (and others) of some of the valuable information Steve Bergman e-mailed to me.
(Clearly you admit what Steve Bergman had to say is valuable because you told us in the post to which I am responding: <<"Uhhh...maybe because I wanted to know what he said?? (I happen to value his[Steve's] contributions">>.)
In your original post at, exchange2000.com, you said:
"Its too bad the rest of us are, for some reason, kept from the
information Mr Bergman shares with you. While I understand that
anyone can e-mail anyone else for most any reason, pertinent
revelations about a product we are all interested in would seem
better shared with all of us. Is Mr.Bergman trying to avoid
a....response?" [emphasis added]**
G) Now, where I come from, your statement, "Is Mr.Bergman trying to avoid a....response?" is considered a rude, taunting challenge to Mr. Bergman's persona, bringing into question what you imply is his bias, credibility or knowledge-base.***
H) I consider calling your behavior (as I did) unwarranted, criticism and mocking of Mr. Bergman to be a nice way of saying you acted in a rude, boorish way to your benefactor. Of course, until your post asked me to explain to you why I used the words I did, I had assumed you did not need for me to go into detail because any person who read what you wrote (excluding, Rick, who acts as if he feels that he himself has been tormented by the readers of this thread, and seems to be begging for a friend, if not an ally here)would recognize you either breached or were ignorant of the rules of etiquette.
I) Now you are informed of the fundamentals of etiquette. This is a topic that is usually taught in elementary school and by parents. That is the source of my credentials as a teacher.
I provided this explanation to you gratuitously.*
Lets see if you have yet learned how to treat your donors.
__________________________________________________________________
FOOTNOTES
__________________________________________________________________
*The word "gratuitous" is defined as:"graútuúiútous adj. 1. Given or granted without return or recompense; unearned. 2. Given or received without cost or obligation.
___________________________________________________________________
** Your post's attitude is reflected even in the first sentence where you state,
<<"Its too bad the rest of us are, for some reason, kept from the
information Mr Bergman shares with you.">>
The language you used implies that Mr. Bergman has something to hide, that there is "some reason" that has prevented Mr. Bergman from doing what you think he had a duty to do, to wit, share with you the information he shared with me. Interestingly, and quite tellingly, you still have not told us why you believe you have a right to know that information, even if Mr. Bergman made the decision not to tell you directly or announce the information himself, publicly.
____________________________________________________________________
***If that is not what you meant, explain to us why else you suggested that Mr. Bergman might be trying to "avoid a ....response, as you so nimbly put it?
|
