Z98 wrote:What case? After Amine's original response, the only point that anyone else tried to make to you was that your original post could be easily misunderstood. You've been trying to argue that following a certain line of thought, which you consider to be logical and obvious, the misunderstanding could have been avoided. Except what's logical, or obvious, or natural to an individual is based on one's perception and perception changes from person to person. Considering that there was a thought process behind your post, one that had considerably more context than your original post since you spent the last couple of posts laying it out, the only way for any of us to have known exactly what you were implying was to be able to duplicate your thought process. Since we can't read your mind, our interpretation of your statement will be based on only what's written. That's the only point that I've been trying to make. It was not a critique or an accusation, it was an observation. It was even one you acknowledged, but you seem fixated on trying to defend your original post.
Let me count.
I made a post, where, as I see it, made it already clear what I meant. It's true that one reads every post according to ones' perception - hence why the remark of the best case and the worst case. It's also true one can base oneself on what is written (though this implies not 'only', because people also base oneself on ones' perception, dixit yourself, and the perception of something and what is actually written are two different things), hence why my first post ought to have been enough.
Then Amine made a post, not asking to explain my reasoning further, which would have been the proper thing to do if you didn't understand something, but with a post that was, let's face it, pretty accusatory (indicating that I was misrepresenting and giving misinformation). (1)
Where to I responded and explained what was meant - even if the first was deemed 'unclear', the second should have been more than enough, even to someone with no reading comprehension whatsoever. (And I think you, Amine and black-fox do have that, btw). (2)
To which you responded with another post, directly asking why I said this or that. (3)
To which I made another post, explaining it AGAIN. (4)
To which Black-fox made another post, as if he was making a point. Indeed; which case, you ask. That's exactly my question too. (5)
To which I made yet another post (6).
How many posts must one make, to be able to rightfully make the claim it's either coming from good will but miscommunication or from being deliberately obtuse? It seems to me, however, that, if a post is unclear to you or doesn't seem to make sense (because one can't follow the reasoning through what is said), you ask for a clarification in the first place, not make an accusatory post about it, which ends in a discussion of several posts, just to make it clear. To be frank, I still don't see how anyone, seeing that he offered help as a software engineer student, if I say 'the devs won't let you near the code' (without some stringent conditions), followed by a link of a jobpage where it handles about directly coding AND the stringent conditions, one can come to the conclusion that I say he can't file a report to JIRA. You don't need the permission to access the code for that from the devs! Neither would it make sense to link to that jobpage if it was about that; the jobpage, as it is directly mentioned there, is about direct coding! Furthermore, no-body was talking about making JIRA-reports, not I, nor the original poster. So where does that come from? I still can't fathom the thought-process where you link the one to the other, and see that as a reasonable, logical thought-process. I mean: neither did I say anything of him not being allowed to test ROS or make a donation to ROS (both things that 'help' ROS); so how comes nobody misreads it that way? It would have made as much sense to do that, as coming up with JIRA, though.
Edit: Anyway, I guess jonaspm is right. We should continue in pm if one still one wants to discuss it further. I personally don't think there is much more to add, though.