C&G not allowing us to port on like for like basis rant

garvbuck

It's not what you say but how you say it.

garvbuck

I'd like to add that I wasn't being negative - somebody else was. I'm not saying it wasn't the truth - and in fact, it wasn't 'not what I wanted to hear' either (it wasn't even my post in the first place). I just think honest advice is best delivered with courtesy and compassion, not sarcasm.

opinions4u

garvbuck wrote: »

It's not what you say but how you say it.

I have mastered the art of conveying tone of voice via a message board then?

I aim to be concise. Not lovey dovey.

_Andy_

Which are the posts you consider to be sarcastic?

garvbuck

opinions4u wrote: »

I aim to be concise. Not lovey dovey.

Ah, there's the sarcasm I was talking about.

_Andy_

garvbuck wrote: »

Ah, there's the sarcasm I was talking about.

And how is it sarcastic? Not sure you have an understanding of what sarcasm is.

opinions4u

garvbuck wrote: »

Ah, there's the sarcasm I was talking about.

At the end of the day you will choose to interpret things the way you want to. You are, of course, wrong on this occasion.

I did ask you prior to this to highlight specific concerns within the thread.

Feel free to post a specific example - more than prepared to eat humble pie if I've stepped out of line.

You chose not to.

This, it would seem, is a time for me to back away from this debate because this isn't adding any value for others reading the forum.

Apologies to others if this has wasted some of your time.

garvbuck

1. My problem was that there is more constructive advice on this issue to give someone than 'completely futile' and 'times change', the last of which any idiot knows and is rude and disrespectful. THERE ARE NATIONWIDE MORTGAGES OUT THERE DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM - and it may well be that less than a hundred people have benefited from them, but it may also be that more people could benefit from them and that more lenders will (as they did in the 90s) start to offer similar products. That's constructive. 'Times change' is not.
2. I think it is deeply ironic that when I asked for people to speak with compassion and courtesy for another poster's problems and frustrations (which are, after all, understandable), I have been met with total rudeness ('I'm not sure you understand what sarcasm is') and condescension (people get defensive when they're not being told what they want to hear).

I just don't think that honesty is compromised by good manners. You are entitled to differ in your opinion, as you say, and I would never be so rude as to say that you are 'of course, wrong'. That's all I have to say on the matter. Sorry if asking for a bit of politeness and respect was 'wasting people's time'.

opinions4u

Ok, I did say I wouldn't reply further. But you've reeled me in.

garvbuck wrote: »

1. My problem was that there is more constructive advice on this issue to give someone than 'completely futile'

A response to the poster suggesting complaining would be "futile". The word was actually used prior to my response by the poster.

and 'times change', the last of which any idiot knows and is rude and disrespectful.

No. It re-affirmed the point in the previous paragraph of my reply. And an individual who says they were a mortgage adviser for 5 years until the Credit Crunch did for their employment knows better than anybody that times have indeed changed.

THERE ARE NATIONWIDE MORTGAGES OUT THERE DEALING WITH THIS PROBLEM - and it may well be that less than a hundred people have benefited from them, but it may also be that more people could benefit from them and that more lenders will (as they did in the 90s) start to offer similar products. That's constructive. 'Times change' is not.

It is not remotely constructive to suggest the poster goes to Nationwide. Their 90%+ deals are not available to borrowers with other lenders. What benefit would have been served by opening up a blind alley?

2. I think it is deeply ironic that when I asked for people to speak with compassion and courtesy for another poster's problems and frustrations (which are, after all, understandable), I have been met with total rudeness ('I'm not sure you understand what sarcasm is') and condescension (people get defensive when they're not being told what they want to hear).

I'm sorry that you feel that way too. I try, where possible, to give answers with clarity. Direct perhaps - and that is intentional. Not condescending or sarcastic though.

I just don't think that honesty is compromised by good manners. You are entitled to differ in your opinion, as you say, and I would never be so rude as to say that you are 'of course, wrong'. That's all I have to say on the matter. Sorry if asking for a bit of politeness and respect was 'wasting people's time'.

You said I treated people with disdain. You were wrong. Some would say such a suggestion was in itself rudeness.

Feel free to have the last word if you wish. I will not be responding further though.

garvbuck

No, you have it. You deserve it.