Come on, are you even reading my stuff? Where did I attest you malicious intentions?
Sooo...
I left the option open by stating "either not a single second was spent on users abroad, or a deliberate decision was made to accommodate the American user base with what they are familiar."
It is either or, but I am well familiar with "ignorance" without malicious intention. Not that it matters for the other side, as the damage is already done by such an attitude.
And, yes, we can clearly judge him. We live in a globalised world and contact with other systems should be at least be considered. It is not as if this is his first site, far from it. He has years of experience by this point, and the clock debate isn't any new. In fact, if I look now, the site uses Month Day Year as formatting. Less essential, a further sign for whom the site was designed in mind.
As such, Tony cannot claim ignorance for what I would consider at this point best practices and professional diligence. You can understand why he did what he did and where he comes from, but that doesn't mean that it is acceptable. He might not be guilty (morally), but he is still responsible (logically).
NOTE: Anything in quotes ("") are your direct quotes. Any brackets ([ ]) within the quotes are me changing the tenses to fit the situation. Single quotes ( ' ' ) are me separating phrases from the rest of the sentence so that they are easier to read. They are in no way connected to your quotations aside from the use of general words (ex. the, ignorance, malicious, etc.)/NOTE
You put into quotations the ignorance you spoke of. That generally means you think it's not really ignorance, but actually something else. Then further said that it doesn't matter if it was ignorance or not, but that "the damage ... [was] ... already done." If that isn't considered malicious intent by humanity, I don't know what is - you know, doing damage to another person/culture with your attitude, especially when you said it wasn't exactly done by "ignorance" as many know it.
Still, you had a way out by saying that you just accidentally put ignorance in quotations, but it was closed off by the various remarks you started making afterward.
First, you said we can clearly judge him. I was still kind of okay with that, since, yeah, this is an international site. However, after that, you said, and I'm directly quoting you, "Less essential, a further sign for whom the site was designed in mind."
The second sentence of your post said that the ignorance wasn't exactly malicious, but then you said the above quote. Meaning, you had suspicions about how it was designed and for whom it was designed. That basically canceled out your sentence saying that Tony could have had ignorance about the topic. You had, indirectly, said that it probably wasn't ignorance.
Even so, it doesn't exactly contradict your sentence here, right?
It is either or, but I am well familiar with "ignorance" without malicious intention. Not that it matters for the other side, as the damage is already done by such an attitude.
Now, let's just read the second-to-last part that I boldened and italicized.
"Tony cannot claim ignorance"
Do you get it?
What you just did was, propose 2 choices, tore one down to shreds using details you added in unnecessarily, only allowed one choice to be made, then said it had never happened.
You might not have understood it, but you did something quite unconsciously. Something that you were probably thinking of in your mind.
You pretended to give multiple options. Then, you only allowed one option.
I'll be clearer since misunderstandings are quite common over the internet.
What you alluded to here was that doing something 'while having ignorance that it might be malicious' was not the same as having malicious intentions (even if it still caused grief).
It is either or, but I am well familiar with "ignorance" without malicious intention. Not that it matters for the other side, as the damage is already done by such an attitude.
HOWEVER!
You said in this below post that Tony cannot claim ignorance.
As such, Tony cannot claim ignorance for what I would consider at this point best practices and professional diligence.
This means that, according to you, what Tony did cannot be considered a simple mistake that anyone could have made, but one that was done with malicious intentions.
I know, you didn't "attest" him of those intentions directly, but you were clearly glazing your words and messages in ways that meant you thought he did.
And, in a digital space, that is all that matters.
Of course, this might have been a simple mistake on your part. But who knows, according to you. After all, you have been put into the same situation as the one you accused (possibly).
TLDR;
the ways you wrote your messages, the way they were laid out, and the other messages you posted all contributed to saying it was malicious intent. yes, you didn't say it clearly. But you narrowed it down indirectly into it being malicious intent.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
oh, and sorry if it was a misunderstanding. I just really went on a rant here, huh? Orz
anyhow, your request is getting implemented, so cheers to you~
. That's just silly.
