[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.

[paxcoder]

You're forcing me to respond. You can't just remove my modifiers and then claim "heavy accusations". Note also the irony of supposing someone's state of mind while advocating proof.

You've already shared your opinion on the past tense and I've disagreed. I'll add to that the use of third person instead of the first. Hopefully this will be my last referral to the OC.

I'm simply claiming that it is probable that it was an attempt at manipulation and that my reaction had reason and purpose outweighing it's "harshness".

[kbenson]

> You're forcing me to respond.

I don't want to continue this if you aren't getting anything out of it. My intent isn't to agitate.

> You can't just remove my modifiers and then claim "heavy accusations".

I'm not sure where I removed the modifiers? Even when tempered by modifiers, and accusation of being wrong required a different level of evidence than of wrongdoing, in my opinion. E.g. "I think you might be incorrect" compared to "I think you might be trying to deceive us". Even mentioning that you think someone is not acting in good faith should be reserved unless you are fairly certain (as outlined by the guidelines). Of course, as you've stated, you felt this situation was at that level. I think most people looking in did not, which is where the friction came from.

> Note also the irony of supposing someone's state of mind while advocating proof.

I don't think it's ironic to suppose a state of mind when the purpose is to give a benefit of a doubt. It's rude, and not conducive to discussion to assume negatively (and then act on it), I don't think the same can be said for asking for keeping an open mind and asking for clarification (without an accusation, or with one but making it very clear you are looking for an alternative explanation).

> You've already shared your opinion on the past tense and I've disagreed. I'll add to that the use of third person instead of the first. Hopefully this will be my last referral to the OC.

> I'm simply claiming that it is probable that it was an attempt at manipulation and that my reaction had reason and purpose outweighing it's "harshness".

Fair enough. I was just trying to understand how you weighted the probabilities of what you thought the commenter was trying to convey to make you think that was the probable intent, because we obviously interpreted it very differently. If you don't want to go into your reasoning, I'm not sure there's much else to say.

[paxcoder]

You removed the modifiers when you were paraphrasing.

Obviously to explain was my exact intention, which is why I provided several arguments to your one.

Honestly, I find your first sentence hard to believe.