Quote:
Originally Posted by dar512
Reread your posts, tw. If you can't hear how pompous they sound, then there's your problem.
|
If you hear anything pompous, then you are entertaining your emotions. I don't care how they sound. I only care what the technical facts are. If you are reading what I am writing, you only see those facts. Pompous is an emotional perception - how you perceive something. If I wanted to be pompous or did not want to sound pompous, then I would worry about being politically correct. I don't. I am only posting facts with complete disregard for something irrelevant - how your emotions react to the sentence structure.
This is a technical discussion. A list of thing to do and to not do – how to solve a technical problem. “You” and “I” have no dog in this fight. “You” and “I” are irrelevant to the subject. If you perceive some hidden meaning in my post, that is you adding what I never stated or even intended.
“It sounds like” is the technical equivalent of wild speculation. Does it specifically state something pompous? Where does that post state a pompous intent? Only way something ‘sounds like’ is if you apply your perceptions – emotions.
I don't care how it sounds. Sounds have nothing to do with technical facts and numbers. A failed computer is the topic here. How to fix it. What is and is not known. What is needed to glean new facts. Pompous has no relevance, is not intended, is (by your own admission) what you perceive.
Worse, you say it 'sounds pompous' without example. In a technical discussion, a fact stated without the underlying whys has no merit. You don't even provide example meaning I can only wildly speculate why you achieved that conclusion. Not that it is relevant. The subject is Juniper's computer; not perceptions due to implied assumptions.
So, where is are your technical facts and objectives that contribute to a solution or the ultimate objective?