topic Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . . in Community Chat

Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

GingerPeach — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 21:27:45 GMT

You've all probably noticed this already, but I still see that many people assume (and not just here) that if someone doesn't write or say every detail about something they add to a post (or in conversation), that somehow this means they don't know the thing they "left out."

I know this is a futile request, but it would be nice to have folks say something like, "You probably know this already" before they proceed to tell you what they think you need to know.

How does that sound to everybody? :-)

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

surfk — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 21:30:53 GMT

@GingerPeach wrote:
You've all probably noticed this already, but I still see that many people assume (and not just here) that if someone doesn't write or say every detail about something they add to a post (or in conversation), that somehow this means they don't know the thing they "left out."

I know this is a futile request, but it would be nice to have folks say something like, "You probably know this already" before they proceed to tell you what they think you need to know.

How does that sound to everybody? :-)

You probably know this already, @GingerPeach but I tend to agree with you.

(Ohmygosh it works!). lol

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

Adelina — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 21:34:47 GMT

@GingerPeach, I've read the opening post over and over and I am still not sure what you mean. Maybe I am having an off day, but could you clarify?

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

GingerPeach — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 21:41:57 GMT

@Adelina For example, if someone posts, "I bought a new book and love it," someone else will say, "Oh, it's not new. It came out six months ago," when all the time you've just bought the paperback version, knowing full well that the hardback was issued earlier.

Or, someone will say, "My kitchen drain is plugged and the disposal won't start. I've tried everything." And they will say, "Use the little tool that unsticks it," when that is probably the first thing you did and included, by reference, in your "everything" statement.

I could go on. Hope that helps a bit. This is not earthshaking - just one of my pet peeves.

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

Adelina — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 21:47:25 GMT

@GingerPeach wrote:
@Adelina For example, if someone posts, "I bought a new book and love it," someone else will say, "Oh, it's not new. It came out six months ago," when all the time you've just bought the paperback version, knowing full well that the hardback was issued earlier.

Or, someone will say, "My kitchen drain is plugged and the disposal won't start. I've tried everything." And they will say, "Use the little tool that unsticks it," when that is probably the first thing you did and included, by reference, in your "everything" statement.

I could go on. Hope that helps a bit. This is not earthshaking - just one of my pet peeves.

________________________________________

NOW, I get it. Thanks! I have found, however, at times the most obvious solution/answer had indeed escaped the poster. But, I recognize that your suggestion is one way not to annoy the poster if that was not the case...

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

GingerPeach — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 21:49:56 GMT

@Adelina

It's all about trying not to annoy the other person. And also recognizing that someone may not have the full story/picture. And we all know the story of "assume." Anyway, enough said.

I'm beginning to annoy myself!

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

AuntG — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 22:05:02 GMT

There does seem to be a need to constantly correct others. I'll use weight loss as an example. If I would talk about it in terms of weight loss being a struggle, someone might chime in and say all you have to do is eat less and exercise more. However, there can be factors that make those things much more difficult than they sound. Therefore, I try to take into account that people don't feel the need to give the obvious details when they post out here.

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

surfk — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 22:09:45 GMT

@AuntG wrote:
There does seem to be a need to constantly correct others. I'll use weight loss as an example. If I would talk about it in terms of weight loss being a struggle, someone might chime in and say all you have to do is eat less and exercise more. However, there can be factors that make those things much more difficult than they sound. Therefore, I try to take into account that people don't feel the need to give the obvious details when they post out here.

I always love it when people send an SOS (after five days of capitivity and finally being able to bore a hole into a cement wall) from a locked basement and it reads, "HELP! I'M LOCKED INTO THE NOTORIOUS DIRTY BASEMENT KILLER'S BASEMENT AND I CAN'T GET OUT!!!"

And someone invariably replies, "Why don't you just use a key?"

lol

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

hckynutjohn — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 22:59:23 GMT

@GingerPeach wrote:
You've all probably noticed this already, but I still see that many people assume (and not just here) that if someone doesn't write or say every detail about something they add to a post (or in conversation), that somehow this means they don't know the thing they "left out."

I know this is a futile request, but it would be nice to have folks say something like, "You probably know this already" before they proceed to tell you what they think you need to know.

How does that sound to everybody? :-)

Not many here have ever accused me of saying too little or leaving things unsaid, quite the opposite. If I leave something out? Brain *art.

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

Adelina — Wed, 05 Aug 2015 23:57:38 GMT

@AuntG wrote:
There does seem to be a need to constantly correct others. I'll use weight loss as an example. If I would talk about it in terms of weight loss being a struggle, someone might chime in and say all you have to do is eat less and exercise more. However, there can be factors that make those things much more difficult than they sound. Therefore, I try to take into account that people don't feel the need to give the obvious details when they post out here.

____________________________________

@AuntG, this is a prime example where not enough information about "the struggle", what was done in the past and why it hasn't worked, is the responsibility of the poster who made the statement.

Often, people start threads and make very general statements, ask for advice, and yet give little to no background information. I would bet that a response along the lines you gave as an example would be meant to be snarky or out of frustration.

If generic commiseration is what the poster wants, then they should say so. I think for the most part, posters really want to help.....

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

NYC Susan — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 02:57:01 GMT

@GingerPeach wrote:
@Adelina For example, if someone posts, "I bought a new book and love it," someone else will say, "Oh, it's not new. It came out six months ago," when all the time you've just bought the paperback version, knowing full well that the hardback was issued earlier.

Or, someone will say, "My kitchen drain is plugged and the disposal won't start. I've tried everything." And they will say, "Use the little tool that unsticks it," when that is probably the first thing you did and included, by reference, in your "everything" statement.

I could go on. Hope that helps a bit. This is not earthshaking - just one of my pet peeves.

I didn't understand at first either, but now I get it. And I agree with you.

Some people are very condescending, and can't seem to give anyone else any credit for intelligence. I think in some cases they're trying to be helpful, but in others I'm not so sure.

I had a situation recently when I was confused about an upcoming reunion. The 2 people running it were giving out conflicting information. So of course I emailed each of them, hoping for clarification, and I got in touch with some fomer classmates too. I posted (elsewhere, not here) about my frustration and I said that I had reached out to pretty much everyone I could think of and I still had no answers. People then wrote, "Why don't you get in touch with the people organizing it?" Well, of course I did! Isn't that the most obvious and first thing that anyone would do??

Like you said, not earthshaking, but annoying.

My biggest pet peeve here is people who respond to a topic, but have nothing to contribute. I don't mean that everyone has to offer brilliant solutions to everyone else's problems, and I don't mind when people write things like, "I have no advice for you, but it sounds like a tough situation and I wish you well." However, people who respond to "Has Anyone Had Problems with Macy's Customer Service?" by posting, "I don't like Macy's. I never go there." always leave me shaking my head and wondering why they bothered to respond at all. I see things like that all the time. What do they think they're contributing? No one asked if they like Macy's! Not every topic requires a reply by everyone who reads it. It's totally okay to read something and then move on! (I also really dislike people raining on other people's parades. Someone starts a topic, all excited about a movie they just saw, and someone replies, "Oh, I saw that. DH & I thought it was stupid." Why be mean like that? It serves no purpose.)

Re: Just because someone doesn't include something . . .

KarenQVC — Thu, 06 Aug 2015 04:30:35 GMT

I don't know why, but the pet peeves cited in this thread don't bother me. I just assume everyone is trying to help---in their own way.