Jump to content

Is There A Need To Be So Rude?


MadMarty
Followers 1

Recommended Posts

Well I had to re-read the original thread to see if Jeremy was in fact rude. I'll summarize here;

 

odragon proposes that event caches be automatically archived.

 

Haggis Hunter agrees and suggest that after about 1 month events be automatically archived.

 

welch responds "Why not just start posting some Needs Archived logs?"

 

Haggis Hunter says "You're quite right we could, but last time I checked I wasn't the cache police, posting needs archiving logs may start to upset people. If we have something that is mandatory and happens automatically people will accept that is how it happens."

 

Jeremy responds "Well golly. We don't want to start upsetting people, do we?"

 

First mistake. Jeremy should've said "The current system of posting should be archived is sufficient. There is no need to automate the process. If there is a legitimate reason for a should be archive log you should worry about upsetting people"

 

Haggis Hunter took Jeremy's remark as dismissive of his suggestion and respond that Jeremy thinks its ok to upset people.

 

Jeremy responds by clarifying that he mean that if bothers you that the cache is still active you shouldn't worry about upsetting the owner.

 

Haggis Hunter feels his suggestion has still been dismissed without a good reason. Those of us who follow the geocaching.com forum regularly know that Jeremy will not make any changes to the website without a good reason. But he didn't make that clear to Haggis Hunter.

 

Jeremy then respond "Kissing your butt wasn't part of the service contract. I normally set my tone by how you set your tone, which started off as being combative and sarcastic. I figured if you could dish it you could take it. Sorry if I was mistaken (and here's a few kissy poos for you then)."

 

Well if that isn't rude I don't know what is. I think Jeremy owes Haggis Hunter an apology.

Why don't you put hunter's orig. post here? then we will see if it is rude.

Edited by Gecko1
Link to comment
Yes, you're correct. Perhaps you can explain to me how Haggis's post was antagonistic. Saying that you don't want to come across as the cache police certainly doesn't appear antagonistic to me.

 

antagonistic was your word not mine...mine was sarcastic...big difference :(

Edited by ohgrl
Link to comment
To answer the OP.  Jeremy tends to respond to who's posting and how they posted.  When the OP is rude, Jeremy is snippy.  If they ask an honest question his answer is typically straight forward.

I can appreciate what you're saying but in no way was Haggis Hunter being rude in this thread. It was obviously Jeremy who came out with the combative and antagonistic remarks.

 

There's no way that can be considered anything but rude. And as you well know, there's no need to be rude at any time. Just ask Ann Landers (well, you can't ask her anymore, but if you could, she would most likely tell Jeremy to grow up).

Well golly, maybe it's just me, but I don't "hear" the rudeness in that remark.

 

No, seriously, I don't.

 

It's too easy to infer tones in the forums. Face it, you "hear" what you want to hear. Cut people some slack...

Finally, someone else who doesn't see any hostility in Haggis's comments.

 

Perhaps Jeremy should cut some people some slack and realize that being rude is just not cool. Perhaps Jeremy just likes being antagonistic and looks for it wherever he can get it?

Talk about not 'hearing' things! Your the one who didn't hear any rudeness in HH's posts, just Jeremy's. Now you quote this to support your view, when I see it as opposing you - make up you mind! Was there rudeness or not? (Rudeness or sarcasm seem the same to you)

Link to comment
To answer the OP.  Jeremy tends to respond to who's posting and how they posted.  When the OP is rude, Jeremy is snippy.  If they ask an honest question his answer is typically straight forward.

I can appreciate what you're saying but in no way was Haggis Hunter being rude in this thread. It was obviously Jeremy who came out with the combative and antagonistic remarks.

 

There's no way that can be considered anything but rude. And as you well know, there's no need to be rude at any time. Just ask Ann Landers (well, you can't ask her anymore, but if you could, she would most likely tell Jeremy to grow up).

Well golly, maybe it's just me, but I don't "hear" the rudeness in that remark.

 

No, seriously, I don't.

 

It's too easy to infer tones in the forums. Face it, you "hear" what you want to hear. Cut people some slack...

Finally, someone else who doesn't see any hostility in Haggis's comments.

 

Perhaps Jeremy should cut some people some slack and realize that being rude is just not cool. Perhaps Jeremy just likes being antagonistic and looks for it wherever he can get it?

I vote for closing this thread! It has TROLL written all over it.

 

TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLLTROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL TROLL...

Nope. Not a troll. Just pointing out what I see as a serious problem. What's wrong with using good manners?

Link to comment
I can appreciate what you're saying but in no way was Haggis Hunter being rude in this thread. It was obviously Jeremy who came out with the combative and antagonistic remarks.

what haggis wrote was: You're quite right we could, but last time I checked I wasn't the cache police

 

I considered that a sarcastic, rude remark in response to someone suggesting using a feature already suppplied by Jeremy (Should be archived)...

 

I am sure that is how many people read it also....rude and sarcastic

I believe that using Jeremy's logic, his somewhat sarcastic reply was a result of the previous post made by Jeremy. Following Jeremy's logic, there should not have been anything wrong with it.

You can't even get your argument in the right order. HH's comment came BEFORE Jeremy's first post. Jeremy was responding to that remark.

Link to comment
This isn't an argument.

Yes it is.

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is.

No, it isn't. It's abuse.

No, it's clearly an argument.

It is not an argument.

Is too.

Is not.

Is too.

Is not.

Is too.

Is not.

Is too.

:(:(:(:(

 

Longer posts make it look like we are working harder huH?

Link to comment
Well I had to re-read the original thread to see if Jeremy was in fact rude. I'll summarize here;

 

odragon proposes that event caches be automatically archived.

 

Haggis Hunter agrees and suggest that after about 1 month events be automatically archived.

 

welch responds "Why not just start posting some Needs Archived logs?"

 

Haggis Hunter says "You're quite right we could, but last time I checked I wasn't the cache police, posting needs archiving logs may start to upset people. If we have something that is mandatory and happens automatically people will accept that is how it happens."

 

Jeremy responds "Well golly. We don't want to start upsetting people, do we?"

 

First mistake. Jeremy should've said "The current system of posting should be archived is sufficient. There is no need to automate the process. If there is a legitimate reason for a should be archive log you should worry about upsetting people"

 

Haggis Hunter took Jeremy's remark as dismissive of his suggestion and respond that Jeremy thinks its ok to upset people.

 

Jeremy responds by clarifying that he mean that if bothers you that the cache is still active you shouldn't worry about upsetting the owner.

 

Haggis Hunter feels his suggestion has still been dismissed without a good reason. Those of us who follow the geocaching.com forum regularly know that Jeremy will not make any changes to the website without a good reason. But he didn't make that clear to Haggis Hunter.

 

Jeremy then respond "Kissing your butt wasn't part of the service contract. I normally set my tone by how you set your tone, which started off as being combative and sarcastic. I figured if you could dish it you could take it. Sorry if I was mistaken (and here's a few kissy poos for you then)."

 

Well if that isn't rude I don't know what is. I think Jeremy owes Haggis Hunter an apology.

As do I.

Link to comment

What we have here, is a failure to communicate. To quote another great movie.

 

I agree whole heartedly with what Sue Grelim said back on page 1 or 2 about how Marty should sit back and observe for a while. I am also fairly new here and I am not a premium member (because I'm lazy, one day I'll pay) and I've never met Jeremy. But I love his taste in movies.

 

MadMarty take a pill (maybe a good old fashioned valium) then have a beer. You stated your opinion which is good, but for cryin out loud stop it. You're beating a dead horse.

 

Does anyone else see a resemblance between MadMarty and another thread from a few weeks ago started by a 14 year old boy. Unfortunately, I can't recall the kids nick and I don't remember what the thread was about - just chalk full of angst though.

 

Thanks for the llamas they made my day.

Link to comment
To answer the OP.  Jeremy tends to respond to who's posting and how they posted.  When the OP is rude, Jeremy is snippy.  If they ask an honest question his answer is typically straight forward.

I can appreciate what you're saying but in no way was Haggis Hunter being rude in this thread. It was obviously Jeremy who came out with the combative and antagonistic remarks.

 

There's no way that can be considered anything but rude. And as you well know, there's no need to be rude at any time. Just ask Ann Landers (well, you can't ask her anymore, but if you could, she would most likely tell Jeremy to grow up).

Well golly, maybe it's just me, but I don't "hear" the rudeness in that remark.

 

No, seriously, I don't.

 

It's too easy to infer tones in the forums. Face it, you "hear" what you want to hear. Cut people some slack...

Finally, someone else who doesn't see any hostility in Haggis's comments.

 

Perhaps Jeremy should cut some people some slack and realize that being rude is just not cool. Perhaps Jeremy just likes being antagonistic and looks for it wherever he can get it?

Actually, I was speaking of Jeremy's response, not Haggis'. Not that I think Haggis was rude either, mind you.

 

Considering you misunderstood me, maybe you should be looking elsewhere for the source of your angst.

 

mmirrorfront.jpg

 

Bret

Link to comment
Well I had to re-read the original thread to see if Jeremy was in fact rude. I'll summarize here;

 

odragon proposes that event caches be automatically archived.

 

Haggis Hunter agrees and suggest that after about 1 month events be automatically archived.

 

welch responds "Why not just start posting some Needs Archived logs?"

 

Haggis Hunter says "You're quite right we could, but last time I checked I wasn't the cache police, posting needs archiving logs may start to upset people. If we have something that is mandatory and happens automatically people will accept that is how it happens."

 

Jeremy responds "Well golly. We don't want to start upsetting people, do we?"

 

First mistake. Jeremy should've said "The current system of posting should be archived is sufficient. There is no need to automate the process. If there is a legitimate reason for a should be archive log you should worry about upsetting people"

 

Haggis Hunter took Jeremy's remark as dismissive of his suggestion and respond that Jeremy thinks its ok to upset people.

 

Jeremy responds by clarifying that he mean that if bothers you that the cache is still active you shouldn't worry about upsetting the owner.

 

Haggis Hunter feels his suggestion has still been dismissed without a good reason. Those of us who follow the geocaching.com forum regularly know that Jeremy will not make any changes to the website without a good reason. But he didn't make that clear to Haggis Hunter.

 

Jeremy then respond "Kissing your butt wasn't part of the service contract. I normally set my tone by how you set your tone, which started off as being combative and sarcastic. I figured if you could dish it you could take it. Sorry if I was mistaken (and here's a few kissy poos for you then)."

 

Well if that isn't rude I don't know what is. I think Jeremy owes Haggis Hunter an apology.

As do I.

This post needs to be read again by a few people here. A little honesty while reading the original thread that caused all of this should put things correct for those with any intelligence.

Link to comment
You can't even get your argument in the right order.  HH's comment came BEFORE Jeremy's first post.  Jeremy was responding to that remark.

It's already been addressed. Perhaps you should read what's going on before commenting.

Sorry, so I type slow. Doesn't change the facts.

Link to comment
Well I had to re-read the original thread to see if Jeremy was in fact rude. I'll summarize here;

 

odragon proposes that event caches be automatically archived.

 

Haggis Hunter agrees and suggest that after about 1 month events be automatically archived.

 

welch responds "Why not just start posting some Needs Archived logs?"

 

Haggis Hunter says "You're quite right we could, but last time I checked I wasn't the cache police, posting needs archiving logs may start to upset people. If we have something that is mandatory and happens automatically people will accept that is how it happens."

 

Jeremy responds "Well golly. We don't want to start upsetting people, do we?"

 

First mistake. Jeremy should've said "The current system of posting should be archived is sufficient. There is no need to automate the process. If there is a legitimate reason for a should be archive log you should worry about upsetting people"

 

Haggis Hunter took Jeremy's remark as dismissive of his suggestion and respond that Jeremy thinks its ok to upset people.

 

Jeremy responds by clarifying that he mean that if bothers you that the cache is still active you shouldn't worry about upsetting the owner.

 

Haggis Hunter feels his suggestion has still been dismissed without a good reason. Those of us who follow the geocaching.com forum regularly know that Jeremy will not make any changes to the website without a good reason. But he didn't make that clear to Haggis Hunter.

 

Jeremy then respond "Kissing your butt wasn't part of the service contract. I normally set my tone by how you set your tone, which started off as being combative and sarcastic. I figured if you could dish it you could take it. Sorry if I was mistaken (and here's a few kissy poos for you then)."

 

Well if that isn't rude I don't know what is. I think Jeremy owes Haggis Hunter an apology.

As do I.

This post needs to be read again by a few people here. A little honesty while reading the original thread that caused all of this should put things correct for those with any intelligence.

WOW! He just went from infering Jeremy's stupid (i.e.. not smart) to calling all of us stupid! Sounds like a troll to me!

Link to comment
Well I had to re-read the original thread to see if Jeremy was in fact rude. I'll summarize here;

 

odragon proposes that event caches be automatically archived.

 

Haggis Hunter agrees and suggest that after about 1 month events be automatically archived.

 

welch responds "Why not just start posting some Needs Archived logs?"

 

Haggis Hunter says "You're quite right we could, but last time I checked I wasn't the cache police, posting needs archiving logs may start to upset people. If we have something that is mandatory and happens automatically people will accept that is how it happens."

 

Jeremy responds "Well golly. We don't want to start upsetting people, do we?"

 

First mistake. Jeremy should've said "The current system of posting should be archived is sufficient. There is no need to automate the process. If there is a legitimate reason for a should be archive log you should worry about upsetting people"

 

Haggis Hunter took Jeremy's remark as dismissive of his suggestion and respond that Jeremy thinks its ok to upset people.

 

Jeremy responds by clarifying that he mean that if bothers you that the cache is still active you shouldn't worry about upsetting the owner.

 

Haggis Hunter feels his suggestion has still been dismissed without a good reason. Those of us who follow the geocaching.com forum regularly know that Jeremy will not make any changes to the website without a good reason. But he didn't make that clear to Haggis Hunter.

 

Jeremy then respond "Kissing your butt wasn't part of the service contract. I normally set my tone by how you set your tone, which started off as being combative and sarcastic. I figured if you could dish it you could take it. Sorry if I was mistaken (and here's a few kissy poos for you then)."

 

Well if that isn't rude I don't know what is. I think Jeremy owes Haggis Hunter an apology.

As do I.

This post needs to be read again by a few people here. A little honesty while reading the original thread that caused all of this should put things correct for those with any intelligence.

Oh, so now you're calling EVERYONE here that doesn't agree with your opinion stupid? Bad forum karma. Bad, bad forum karma.

Link to comment
The bottom line is that Jeremy should apologize to Haggis Hunter for being rude to him.

 

I suspect that his over-inflated ego will prohibit him from doing so with any sincerity.

Where's your apology for your rudeness to Jeremy and the rest of the responders to this thread? :( Maybe setting a good example would help?

Link to comment
WOW!  He just went from infering Jeremy's stupid (i.e.. not smart) to calling all of us stupid!  Sounds like a troll to me!

No. I didn't infer that anyone here is stupid (that was your word). But anyone who reads the original post correctly for what it is will see that Jeremy is in the wrong.

 

For that, you will need to show some intelligence.

Edited by MadMarty
Link to comment
The bottom line is that Jeremy should apologize to Haggis Hunter for being rude to him.

 

I suspect that his over-inflated ego will prohibit him from doing so with any sincerity.

Where's your apology for your rudeness to Jeremy and the rest of the responders to this thread? :( Maybe setting a good example would help?

Sorry, but I don't feel that I need to apologize for anything that I've said to Jeremy.

Link to comment
WOW!  He just went from infering Jeremy's stupid (i.e.. not smart) to calling all of us stupid!  Sounds like a troll to me!

No. I didn't infer that anyone here is stupid (that was your word). But anyone who reads the original post correctly for what it is will see that Jeremy is in the wrong.

 

For that, you will need to show some intelligence.

Aren't you trying to say that hunter wasn't wrong? We already know your thoughts on jeremy.

Link to comment
WOW! He just went from infering Jeremy's stupid (i.e.. not smart) to calling all of us stupid! Sounds like a troll to me!

Funny as it is, intelligence is the one human characteristic that is most fair distributed by nature. Many people complain about something too small, big, short, long, thin, thick ... but very few people complain about having too little or too much intelligence. Even a troll like MadMarty would insist that he got enough.

 

Jan

Link to comment

dadgum guys...

 

Without taking sides on this matter, I have noticed these forums to often have a snotty tone to them, from a lot of different posters. I haven't seen this type of problem in other forums I belong to. Most of us are adults here, right?

 

So why is it that so many times on thes forums, peoples posts don't represent that maturity?

 

Now is the part where everyone sharpens their axes and pitchforks, and chases me into the hills screaming "Love it or leave it".

 

I really like it here, but I think if people were less snarky, and more helpful... it would do us all some good. I am not directing that comment at any one person, just us Geocachers as a whole.

Link to comment
WOW!  He just went from infering Jeremy's stupid (i.e.. not smart) to calling all of us stupid!  Sounds like a troll to me!

No. I didn't infer that anyone here is stupid (that was your word). But anyone who reads the original post correctly for what it is will see that Jeremy is in the wrong.

 

For that, you will need to show some intelligence.

Well, I've read ther thread in question. I've read all your responses. I still do not come to the same conclussion as you. Now, by your last statement, that means that I am not showing intelligence. That would imply that if I don't choose to agree with you, that I'm not intelligent, i.e. stupid.

 

Maybe I'm just not intelligent enough to realize that you are not blindly calling anyone who opposes you stupid....

Link to comment
The bottom line is that Jeremy should apologize to Haggis Hunter for being rude to him.

 

I suspect that his over-inflated ego will prohibit him from doing so with any sincerity.

 

AND FROM A PREVIOUS POST:

 

For that, you will need to show some intelligence

:(:(:D:(:(

 

You have ranted on for 4 pages about how only your opinion is right and you are saying someone else has an overinflated ego?

 

Intelligence is when someone is unhappy, states their opinions and lets matters drop instead of letting others ruffle his feathers.

 

Fun is watching this thread get bigger and wasting yet another 10 minutes of my employer's dime

 

:(

Link to comment
WOW!  He just went from infering Jeremy's stupid (i.e.. not smart) to calling all of us stupid!  Sounds like a troll to me!

No. I didn't infer that anyone here is stupid (that was your word). But anyone who reads the original post correctly for what it is will see that Jeremy is in the wrong.

 

For that, you will need to show some intelligence.

To quote you - that's already been covered. Infering supid by claim he's "not smart".

 

As for your comment about my IQ (which I know and am comfortable with) you were flat out rude and need to apologize. (I won't hold my breath, trolls never apologize.)

Link to comment
The bottom line is that Jeremy should apologize to Haggis Hunter for being rude to him.

 

I suspect that his over-inflated ego will prohibit him from doing so with any sincerity.

Where's your apology for your rudeness to Jeremy and the rest of the responders to this thread? :( Maybe setting a good example would help?

Sorry, but I don't feel that I need to apologize for anything that I've said to Jeremy.

Do you know what a troll is? This is definately trolling.

Link to comment
Well, I've read ther thread in question. I've read all your responses. I still do not come to the same conclussion as you. Now, by your last statement, that means that I am not showing intelligence. That would imply that if I don't choose to agree with you, that I'm not intelligent, i.e. stupid.

I didn't call you or anyone else stupid.

 

I won't however, argue with anything else that you wrote in that post.

Link to comment
Marty...Here's how I see it.

 

Are you a premium member?

 

express your displeasure with Jeremy through a pm, telling him why you either are not a premium member, or will not be renewing your membership, and let it go at that.

 

save some face.

Yes. Let us get back to work.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Followers 1
×
×
  • Create New...