Click here to monitor SSC
SQLServerCentral is supported by Red Gate Software Ltd.
 
Log in  ::  Register  ::  Not logged in
 
 
 
        
Home       Members    Calendar    Who's On


Add to briefcase «««3,9853,9863,9873,9883,989»»»

Are the posted questions getting worse? Expand / Collapse
Author
Message
Posted Wednesday, May 22, 2013 6:30 PM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:49 PM
Points: 353, Visits: 2,229
I'd still like to address Brandy Tarvin's "attack labelling". First, lets drill down on the actual objectionable phrase, I used, and Brandy Tarvin's characterization of it.

The phrase in question ("Not a big web user eh? Its not like people haven't been discussing this to death.") comes across as harsh and belittling. The word choices make it sound as if you're questioning Tom's intelligence and ability to use technology. It is very confrontational and insulting, which is why I called you out in an earlier post about being harsh

First, Brandy the "attack labeller" calls this harsh and belittling, and labels this an "attack". Now you could use for instance "attack", if its like non labelling "attack and counterattack" like a good natured ribbing about point and counterpoint in debate for instance, but this doesn't seem to be what Brandy is doing here. She is upping the offense level and this is what I'm particularily interested in. She is subjectively telling you guys here that I'm "questioning Tom's intelligence and ability to use technology", all from the phrase indicating that he's paid scant attention to all the noise going on about 8. I absolutely do believe Tom's paid scant attention, either that, or he holds so much contempt for it that he believes folks like me are, well, you know the rest, and frankly I thought a snippy "don't browse the web much" would thankfully skip that little embarrasing characterization he used. Brandy Tarvin's characterization of my "belittling" of Tom and "questioning Toms intelligence and ability to use technology" in my opinion is just a deliberate attempt at inaccurately escalating and inventing offense in a fundamentally dishonest manner, but as long as I can voice my dissatisfaction to what I view as an extraordinary poor and inaccurate characterisation on her part, then I'm certainly not going to demand her poorly conceived postings stop as long as I can post the occasional rebuttal to them
Post #1455772
Posted Wednesday, May 22, 2013 7:11 PM
SSCrazy

SSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazySSCrazy

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:31 PM
Points: 2,749, Visits: 7,146
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (5/22/2013)
I'd still like to address Brandy Tarvin's "attack labelling". First, lets drill down on the actual objectionable phrase, I used, and Brandy Tarvin's characterization of it.

The phrase in question ("Not a big web user eh? Its not like people haven't been discussing this to death.") comes across as harsh and belittling. The word choices make it sound as if you're questioning Tom's intelligence and ability to use technology. It is very confrontational and insulting, which is why I called you out in an earlier post about being harsh

First, Brandy the "attack labeller" calls this harsh and belittling, and labels this an "attack". Now you could use for instance "attack", if its like non labelling "attack and counterattack" like a good natured ribbing about point and counterpoint in debate for instance, but this doesn't seem to be what Brandy is doing here. She is upping the offense level and this is what I'm particularily interested in. She is subjectively telling you guys here that I'm "questioning Tom's intelligence and ability to use technology", all from the phrase indicating that he's paid scant attention to all the noise going on about 8. I absolutely do believe Tom's paid scant attention, either that, or he holds so much contempt for it that he believes folks like me are, well, you know the rest, and frankly I thought a snippy "don't browse the web much" would thankfully skip that little embarrasing characterization he used. Brandy Tarvin's characterization of my "belittling" of Tom and "questioning Toms intelligence and ability to use technology" in my opinion is just a deliberate attempt at inaccurately escalating and inventing offense in a fundamentally dishonest manner, but as long as I can voice my dissatisfaction to what I view as an extraordinary poor and inaccurate characterisation on her part, then I'm certainly not going to demand her poorly conceived postings stop as long as I can post the occasional rebuttal to them


I don't think Brandie was "upping the offense level." I think she was being frank and honest about how the comment appeared to her. I agree with her interpretaion. "Snippy" can easily come across as "confrontational and insulting" or questioning someone's intelligence. I'm sure part of the original offense on both sides comes from regional differences in English. I don't believe Brandie was trying to tell the rest of us anything, she was trying to communicate to you how she saw your post and why Tom may have taken offense. At the very least you came off as dismissive of a specific person. At worst you seemed like you were looking for a fight. An impression not dispelled by this subsequent post.


--------------------------------------
When you encounter a problem, if the solution isn't readily evident go back to the start and check your assumptions.
--------------------------------------
It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.
What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?
You ask a glass of water. -- Douglas Adams
Post #1455779
Posted Wednesday, May 22, 2013 8:03 PM
Old Hand

Old HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld HandOld Hand

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:49 PM
Points: 353, Visits: 2,229
Stefan Krzywicki (5/22/2013)
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (5/22/2013)
I'd still like to address Brandy Tarvin's "attack labelling". First, lets drill down on the actual objectionable phrase, I used, and Brandy Tarvin's characterization of it.

The phrase in question ("Not a big web user eh? Its not like people haven't been discussing this to death.") comes across as harsh and belittling. The word choices make it sound as if you're questioning Tom's intelligence and ability to use technology. It is very confrontational and insulting, which is why I called you out in an earlier post about being harsh

First, Brandy the "attack labeller" calls this harsh and belittling, and labels this an "attack". Now you could use for instance "attack", if its like non labelling "attack and counterattack" like a good natured ribbing about point and counterpoint in debate for instance, but this doesn't seem to be what Brandy is doing here. She is upping the offense level and this is what I'm particularily interested in. She is subjectively telling you guys here that I'm "questioning Tom's intelligence and ability to use technology", all from the phrase indicating that he's paid scant attention to all the noise going on about 8. I absolutely do believe Tom's paid scant attention, either that, or he holds so much contempt for it that he believes folks like me are, well, you know the rest, and frankly I thought a snippy "don't browse the web much" would thankfully skip that little embarrasing characterization he used. Brandy Tarvin's characterization of my "belittling" of Tom and "questioning Toms intelligence and ability to use technology" in my opinion is just a deliberate attempt at inaccurately escalating and inventing offense in a fundamentally dishonest manner, but as long as I can voice my dissatisfaction to what I view as an extraordinary poor and inaccurate characterisation on her part, then I'm certainly not going to demand her poorly conceived postings stop as long as I can post the occasional rebuttal to them


I don't think Brandie was "upping the offense level." I think she was being frank and honest about how the comment appeared to her. I agree with her interpretaion. "Snippy" can easily come across as "confrontational and insulting" or questioning someone's intelligence. I'm sure part of the original offense on both sides comes from regional differences in English. I don't believe Brandie was trying to tell the rest of us anything, she was trying to communicate to you how she saw your post and why Tom may have taken offense. At the very least you came off as dismissive of a specific person. At worst you seemed like you were looking for a fight. An impression not dispelled by this subsequent post.

The worst I could imagine my phrasing could be honestly interpreted as would be a very mild expression of incredulity at Toms post. Brandy's proposed interpretation falls outside of that range of possibility and thats about as complicated as it gets.
Post #1455785
Posted Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:30 PM


SSChampion

SSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampionSSChampion

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 2:57 PM
Points: 13,058, Visits: 11,884
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/22/2013)
Sean Lange (5/22/2013)
Steve Jones - SSC Editor (5/21/2013)
Grant has a Surface RT. However Sean said "For the Touch I do not have the newer version of the OS. I have the older and much less expensive version."

I am curious if I'm forgetting some older MS product.


No it is my brain that is the issue. I was referring to the Surface.

Whew, thought it was me.

RT or Pro?


RT. Pro would be nice but it is way more expensive. The bonus was that my phone was free when I bought the Surface. Well I had to renew but I was due for an upgrade anyway.


_______________________________________________________________

Need help? Help us help you.

Read the article at http://www.sqlservercentral.com/articles/Best+Practices/61537/ for best practices on asking questions.

Need to split a string? Try Jeff Moden's splitter.

Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 1 – Converting Rows to Columns
Cross Tabs and Pivots, Part 2 - Dynamic Cross Tabs
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 1)
Understanding and Using APPLY (Part 2)
Post #1455800
Posted Wednesday, May 22, 2013 10:51 PM


SSC-Insane

SSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-InsaneSSC-Insane

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 10:01 PM
Points: 22,980, Visits: 31,456
Sergiy (5/22/2013)
Lynn Pettis (5/22/2013)

One thing I learned in a Marketing class many years ago. If someone has a good experience with a product or company they tell 3 people. On the other hand, if you have had a bad experience with a product or company you tell 11 people. You are much more likely to hear about bad experiences than good.


That's probably why there was no so much noice about new version of iOS - iOS6.

Well, actually there was, mainly about its Maps.
And guess what - they turned out to be really s..ty. To such extend that Apple themselves recommended to use Google Maps instead.

So, may be that "vocal minority" is not that wrong after all...


Never said they were wrong, just the ones you hear.



Lynn Pettis

For better assistance in answering your questions, click here
For tips to get better help with Performance Problems, click here
For Running Totals and its variations, click here or when working with partitioned tables
For more about Tally Tables, click here
For more about Cross Tabs and Pivots, click here and here
Managing Transaction Logs

SQL Musings from the Desert Fountain Valley SQL (My Mirror Blog)
Post #1455802
Posted Thursday, May 23, 2013 3:50 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Today @ 1:33 AM
Points: 6,130, Visits: 7,165
Nevermind.


- Craig Farrell

Never stop learning, even if it hurts. Ego bruises are practically mandatory as you learn unless you've never risked enough to make a mistake.

For better assistance in answering your questions | Forum Netiquette
For index/tuning help, follow these directions. |Tally Tables

Twitter: @AnyWayDBA
Post #1455917
Posted Thursday, May 23, 2013 4:00 AM


SSCoach

SSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoachSSCoach

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 3:39 PM
Points: 15,489, Visits: 27,875
GilaMonster (5/22/2013)
Grant Fritchey (5/22/2013)
GilaMonster (5/22/2013)
Oh look... "I don't think that's right... " again. Anyone got a baseball bat? Or a punching bag?


Will an Arkansas tire thumper work?


No idea what one of those is, but I like the idea.


What, Google no workie? Here you go. What's not mentioned is the hollow core filled with lead.


----------------------------------------------------
"The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena, whose face is marred by dust and sweat and blood..." Theodore Roosevelt
The Scary DBA
Author of: SQL Server 2012 Query Performance Tuning
SQL Server 2008 Query Performance Tuning Distilled
and
SQL Server Execution Plans

Product Evangelist for Red Gate Software
Post #1455920
Posted Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:18 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:57 AM
Points: 7,112, Visits: 6,280
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (5/22/2013)
Brandie Tarvin (5/22/2013)
patrickmcginnis59 10839 (5/21/2013)
L' Eomot Inversé (5/21/2013)

In response to Patrick, it would have better phrased something like "There is a lot of discussion of this on the web. Have you not seen anything that indicates what the problems are?" which seems very much less like a snide remark.

,,, after typing in this very thread ...

Now can someone tell me what all the fuss is about? Please? I just don't understand what the difficulties are, in fact I suspect they were unreal problems dreamt up by bone-headed old dinosaurs who have forgotten how to adapt to new things.

Seriously?


The difference being that his dinosaurs comment came across as a generic reference and was not directed specificially at anyone in this thread. Whereas your comment was specifically directed at him and made about him.

What you're saying is that I was perfectly welcome to avoid mentioning my disapproval of the product so as to avoid his wide sweeping and exaggerated characterization of anybody who deems to have a complaint, right?


...

Missing the point.


Brandie Tarvin, MCITP Database Administrator

Webpage: http://www.BrandieTarvin.net
LiveJournal Blog: http://brandietarvin.livejournal.com/
On LinkedIn!, Google+, and Twitter.

Freelance Writer: Shadowrun
Latchkeys: Nevermore, Latchkeys: The Bootleg War, and Latchkeys: Roscoes in the Night are now available on Nook and Kindle.
Post #1455997
Posted Thursday, May 23, 2013 7:24 AM


SSCertifiable

SSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiableSSCertifiable

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 8:57 AM
Points: 7,112, Visits: 6,280
Oh for heaven's sake, Patrick, if you're going to yell at me could you at least spell my name correctly?

Brandie Tarvin, MCITP Database Administrator

Webpage: http://www.BrandieTarvin.net
LiveJournal Blog: http://brandietarvin.livejournal.com/
On LinkedIn!, Google+, and Twitter.

Freelance Writer: Shadowrun
Latchkeys: Nevermore, Latchkeys: The Bootleg War, and Latchkeys: Roscoes in the Night are now available on Nook and Kindle.
Post #1455998
Posted Thursday, May 23, 2013 8:01 AM
SSC Veteran

SSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC VeteranSSC Veteran

Group: General Forum Members
Last Login: Yesterday @ 9:27 AM
Points: 290, Visits: 1,657
Chad Crawford (5/22/2013)

For the record, I can see both sides of this discussion. I can see how both Patrick and Tom (and others) could be offended and how they could feel that their own comments were not offensive*. Would I have personally taken offense by some of the comments? Yes, I think I would have on some of them. But looking back, I can also see how the offense may not have been intended.


I'm with Chad on this. The arguments themselves could have been made with a tad more civility, e.g.:

Patrick: I think MS made a mistake by pushing Windows 8 onto desktop platforms [or something like that; I apologize, Patrick, if I'm overgeneralizing]

Tom: Really? I don't see that as an issue. I made the leap with little difficulty. I wonder whether the people having issues fall into the change-averse bucket and will eventually come around to the benefits of the interface.

Patrick: Well, that might be dismissing their complaints a little lightly; it would appear that this is causing major issues for quite a few users.

Etc., etc.

Comments about boneheaded dinosaurs, lack of Web savvy, etc. may add a bit of color but shouldn't be necessary to drive a point home (though I readily admit to occasionally adding such "color" to my posts).

I'm not sure that I would necessarily agree that Patrick's remarks were any more snide than Tom's (I do see the general vs specific argument; I'm just not convinced that that condemns one while absolving the other), but I'm more familiar with Tom's style and so perhaps give him the benefit of a few more doubts.

Lastly (if I may), I didn't see Brandie's comments as adding offense; she was defending a friend while trying to leverage a "teachable" moment by sharing how she interpreted Patrick's remarks.

This whole thing reminds of me of just how a discussion might go with my buddies at the bar: opinions colored with attempts at humorous disparagement; nobody gets truly offended because a level of mutual respect has already been established.

Doesn't play as nice here since we don't know each other from Adam; but I like to think that the offense that appears to have been taken by multiple parties was much greater than the sources intended.


Post #1456024
« Prev Topic | Next Topic »

Add to briefcase «««3,9853,9863,9873,9883,989»»»

Permissions Expand / Collapse