Well, yes, that’s the gist of the whole diatribe, “junk pics bad.” But you seem to have missed my point entirely, too, because my point was “sending junk pics* makes you look like an asshole and will probably ruin the other person’s mood.” Again, re-read my conclusion. And, just in case, that was the point of the post, too. Again, the job description only serves to drive home the point in that particular case.
Also, I genuinely don’t see how what I’ve written is insulting. What, the fact that I apologised that I don’t have the time to do reading comprehension? Well, yeah, because I genuinely did not have the time to do reading comprehension (which, again, may have been entirely pointless even if I did have it, as the commenter didn’t exactly demonstrate having read the entire text before jumping on “oh, so are only scientists allowed to feel offended?!”). Are you bothered by the “reading comprehension” bit? If so, why? That’s literally what that’s called.
You’ve jumped in defence of someone who hadn’t read the whole comment (at least I hope they didn’t read it, otherwise it’s worse!) (edit:) and who started out hostile from the go, and built your argument around misunderstanding my comment (again!). The initial question was (paraphrasing): “how is the job description relevant?” And I did just that in my first paragraph - explain the literary value of the job description as an element of this tale, what its value is in shaping the message and driving the point home. After which I returned to saying that, yes, one’d be an asshole regardless. (Edit 2:) I even went as far as to clarify that one would be an asshole even regardless of the type of junk one possesses in my Edit, not just one’s job.
The fact that YOU choose to hyperfocus on that element and not the vast tracts of text surrounding it on either side does not mean that the original text’s messaging is what you want it to be.
Well, yes, that’s the gist of the whole diatribe, “junk pics bad.” But you seem to have missed my point entirely, too, because my point was “sending junk pics* makes you look like an asshole and will probably ruin the other person’s mood.” Again, re-read my conclusion. And, just in case, that was the point of the post, too. Again, the job description only serves to drive home the point in that particular case.
Also, I genuinely don’t see how what I’ve written is insulting. What, the fact that I apologised that I don’t have the time to do reading comprehension? Well, yeah, because I genuinely did not have the time to do reading comprehension (which, again, may have been entirely pointless even if I did have it, as the commenter didn’t exactly demonstrate having read the entire text before jumping on “oh, so are only scientists allowed to feel offended?!”). Are you bothered by the “reading comprehension” bit? If so, why? That’s literally what that’s called.
You’ve jumped in defence of someone who hadn’t read the whole comment (at least I hope they didn’t read it, otherwise it’s worse!) (edit:) and who started out hostile from the go, and built your argument around misunderstanding my comment (again!). The initial question was (paraphrasing): “how is the job description relevant?” And I did just that in my first paragraph - explain the literary value of the job description as an element of this tale, what its value is in shaping the message and driving the point home. After which I returned to saying that, yes, one’d be an asshole regardless. (Edit 2:) I even went as far as to clarify that one would be an asshole even regardless of the type of junk one possesses in my Edit, not just one’s job.
The fact that YOU choose to hyperfocus on that element and not the vast tracts of text surrounding it on either side does not mean that the original text’s messaging is what you want it to be.
Right back at you!