[kbenson]

And that last sentence makes it obvious why he's using the past tense. Systemtap is in his past. When it was last committed to is irrelevant.

If I was feeling less gracious, I might call into question whether you actually have no horse in this race, as apparently calling other people's motives and statements into question is apparently fair game for this thread.

[paxcoder]

It might have been clear had it been used to set the tone. But used like this I think it deserves criticism whether intentional or not.

While I certainly can be be wrong, I also wasn't assured it wasn't intentional by the way it was explained. I suggest we all mind phrasing and get along this way.

P.S. I don't find it gracious of you to imply that I might be a lying cheat.

[kbenson]

> I don't find it gracious of you to imply that I might be a lying cheat.

I wasn't. I was using the idea that someone could imply that to point out your own behavior. That you took it as negatively as you did and assumed there was some deeper implication was the point (that is, that you could, not that it was intended). The only thing you didn't do is connect it to your own behavior in your prior comment.

[paxcoder]

I never denied that I have made an implication. I believe I had better grounds for it (or I wouldn't have invested time in checking the project's state in the first place), provided a clearer point for OP to counter, and that that my tone was not as provokative.

If you can imagine a more tactful yet still effective alternative deterrent, I'm open to suggestions. I don't believe that just pointing out the fact of the use of the inappropriate tense would have been enough.

[kbenson]

> I never denied that I have made an implication. I believe I had better grounds for it

I think you interpreted the statement a specific way, and went about your response without considering that your interpretation may not have been their intent. If you had allowed for the possibility of misinterpretation, I imagine you might have been a bit less aggressive with the accusation initially.

> that that my tone was not as provokative.

My view of your tone was informed by your assertion of the intention of another commenter. I generally find it to be bad form to tell someone (correct them on) their intention, rather than your interpretation of their intention.

To clarify, stated as fact "It's not a typo" means you reject the original commenter's possible explanation, but since we're talking about their intent, that is in effect calling them a liar (since they are the canonical source of knowledge as to their intention).

Perhaps that wasn't your intention, and the downvotes you received were unwarranted. If so, you have my apologies, and my suggestion that you be careful about using absolutist terminology when referring to people's intentions when it contradicts their own assertions without supplying good evidence (in this case, the evidence you supplied did not negate other explanations). There's a high bar to adequately explaining someone is wrong about their professed reasoning, rightly so.

> If you can imagine a more tactful yet still effective alternative deterrent, I'm open to suggestions.

Originally: "I'm confused as to why you are using the past tense for SystemTap, the project is still very active."

In the follow up: "Are you sure typo is what you meant? Your last sentence seems to indicate it's in your past as well." (If you don't see that last sentence for what it is, an indication that SystemTap is in this person't past, and thus they refer to it in the past tense to relate their experience to some former version of it. This is useful to notify others that your information on the topic may not be completely current.)

[paxcoder]

I did consider it, as evidenced by the words "seems" and "might". As for typo - it was not it, absolutely. Note that this fact doesn't necessarily imply dishonesty, but it is a possibility. This other comment was harsher indeed but likewise for a reason. The way I see it, it seems probable that OP was deceptive and my intention was to call them out in case it was. I'm still unconvinced by the excuse. Your suggestion of how I should have handled it is exactly the option I considered inadequate. I've addressed the last sentence and don't care to address the original comment yet again. This is one of the longest threads I've been a party to on here, and no offense to you, but I'm not sure it was worth it.

EDIT: Admittedly I did assert there was a theme.

[kbenson]

> I did consider it, as evidenced by the words "seems" and "might".

Your "seems" and "might" were modifiers on him "having a horse in this race." Unless your comments were meant to be taken entirely separately, the implication is "you are using the past tense because you have some vested interest in one of the projects." That's a fairly heavy accusation.

> The way I see it, it seems probable that OP was deceptive ... Your suggestion of how I should have handled it is exactly the option I considered inadequate.

See, I think this is one of those instances where your state of mind regarding this is coloring your interpretation of events. If you think that original comment using past tense was meant to imply the project was dead, I don't see that. To me that seems far less likely than the person used past tense because their experience was in the past, because I have done that myself, I see it on a regular basis, and I don't see people using it to imply a status of projects that doesn't match reality. Have you encountered this before?

> This is one of the longest threads I've been a party to on here, and no offense to you, but I'm not sure it was worth it.

Sure, I understand that. I'm responding because you're being civil in a discussion that's centered around a supposed mistake of yours, and I find understanding people's reasoning and state of mind when communicating to be somewhat interesting. Don't feel obligated to continue for my sake though.