So is it fair to say this is a new thing? Also, is it documented somewhere? It came out of left field to me -- I had never seen this before. Was there something I missed? I've read a lot of the material on Meta in the last month but there's still tons and tons of posts and comments that I haven't read.

Well - its presumably my spin on what's in the help in fewer, but sometimes bigger words.

Which part of the comment help article would be relevant here?

Uhm. I am tempted to say all of it - but if I must pick the essentials - I'd go with "When shouldn't I comment?" and the bits that go "Secondary discussion or debating a controversial point". To expand "When should I comment? " is useful too.

Thanks. Let's see. "debating a controversial point" -- that's almost constant now. We are in shark-infested waters, I guess. "Request clarification from the author" -- that's what I was trying to do. At any rate, from your post, here's what I'm getting: maybe it was a new rule. Maybe User A just made up the rule then and there. Maybe it was an unwritten rule that I didn't know about before. Bottom line, if User A is indignant, believe that B was butting in inappropriately, then the customer is always right, and B will gain no new understanding by asking again. Is that about right?

The line between the two is really fine. With one comment, its clarification. When 5-6... or 90... it turns into a discussion. I guess its a matter of respecting the other person's space too.

It was less than 5. But it was clearly too many for User A. Everybody has a hair trigger currently.... // Can you tell me, is there a rule about not "butting in" to a "private" conversation out in the open?

And that is something that we need to realise and respect

Live and learn. Thank you. Nevertheless, I am going to raise a flag on the post that made the whole thing unnecessarily personal.

Let us continue this discussion in chat.

That's a bit buggy ._.

Different rooms? ...

Buggy? Different rooms? I'm not with you. But I confess I'm not very experienced with chat rooms.

@JourneymanGeek

Thanks for moving the whole thing as I requested. Much appreciated.

@aparente001 the user generated "Lets continue this discussion in chat" and the mod generated ones are different.

@aparente001 It was certainly not less than five. It felt like 20, but it wasn't quite that bad, either. And, please note there's a difference - you weren't requesting a clarification, you were insisting that I was wrong, that you were right, and implied that you and all of SE deserved proof from a source you know is private (if you've been following meta for a month.)

Since people rarely read conversations moved to chat, can I address the issue personally here? Why would you want to engage with someone who continually asks you (politely) not to engage them personally? Do you do that in real life? (I know someone who does. The person will follow the "opponent" who is trying to disengage around the house repeating, and through closed doors repeating, and if the "opponent" leaves the house, on the phone repeating until they get what they want...

...or the opponent issues an extremely unpleasant ultimatum.) I actually know someone like this and have heard from friends whom I trust that they are intimately acquainted with people like this. So please know that your repeated pings are a little bit like this. It's unpleasant.

@anongoodnurse - see below

@JourneymanGeek - and anon: Yes, sure, I'm game. I'd be more comfortable with a private room and a neutral third party present. I suppose that would work best if we made an appointment for a live conversation.

I'm also wondering if it would be possible for the three of us to privately review the original comment thread. Right now, without being able to review the actual comment sequence, we're arguing about yesterday's cloud patterns. The most subjective thing possible.

@aparente001 No, I'm afraid you misunderstood. I already addressed this here in my comments.

@anongoodnurse - You wrote, "can I address the issue personally here?" I don't get it.

@aparente001 Yesterday's clouid patterns may well be te most subjective thing in the world, but the comment thread can be reproduced; it is not subjective in the least. It is concrete.

@aparente001 Yes. Then I did so.

I'd be happy to look at it. That could be instructive.

If you just want to fling words at me, consider it mission accomplished. If you want to have a dialogue, I am game.

Sorry. Pinging: @anongoodnurse.

@aparente001 Then please ask @JourneymanGeek to see it, but there's no guarantee he'll reply.

@anongoodnurse - Thank you for your blessing. I did write the request a minute ago (see above). If he is amenable, would you like to make an appointment to talk things over in a private room with a neutral third party present such as journeymangeek?

@aparente001 OK, then a private room it is. But be forewarned, I am not as kind and considered in live chat as when I have a few minutes to compose an answer.

@anongoodnurse - Not sure what you're saying with the forewarning. Are you saying that the kid gloves are going to come off?

@aparente001 I think that @JourneymanGeek had enough on hus plate rigt now witout monopolizing more of his time on what would likely be a long and fruitless discussion.

@aparente001 Yes, that's generally what it means, but I wouldn't say it quite like that. I would say, my answers will not be well thought out. They will have an edge to them.

@anongoodnurse - Having a neutral third party present is important to me. Sorry, that's the only way I will do it.

And I don't want to burden Geek any more than he already has been with this whole Q&A. If you want to choose a really neutral party among the resigned or self suspended mods, that would seem more considerate of Geek's time.

I'd like to give him first refusal.

Gaak, te misspellings here are terrible. Wonky keyboard, sorry.

@aparente001 I would not like to do that. Are we at an impass?

Sorry, what misspellings? I only saw impass. Did I mistype something?

I already invited him. You want me to retract that?

No, I have been doing so. My keyboard is wonky.

@aparente001 I would very much appreciate it.

I didn't notice.

Let me think about that.

:)

About the "edge" -- I know that there is a lot of tension between us. If we do decide to hash things out and try to clear the air (or whatever it is we are contemplating doing), I'm fine with you speaking your mind, as long as you are patient and respectful. I don't mind being patient if you need a little extra time to think before hitting "send."

Okay, I will check back later. So long.

@aparente001 You don't have to do it at all. But you didn't answer my question, which might help.

Why would you want to engage with someone who continually asks you (politely) not to engage them personally? Do you do that in real life?

That's the social aspect. If you do it in real life (continue to ask them questions when they've asked you to stop), ten it makes sense to do it here.

If you don't do it in real life (continue to ask them questions when they've asked you to stop), then it makes sense not to do it here.

You say, "I'm fine with you speaking your mind, as long as you are patient and respectful."

If you do not think I'm being patient and respectful right now, here, or that JourneymanGeek wasn't being patient and respectful here (yet you answered him pretty defensively), ten it won't do to talk at all. You will never find me patient and respectful enough, because this is me being patient and respectful and open and honest.

And I really do want to know the answer to the question.