> In a couple of cases, I have been able to get people on the horn (PROTIP: Don't be calling them "smug," and be polite, even though you want to throttle them), where they have explained the issue.
> That "smugness" is actually a deliberate part of their brand.
I wasn't calling Apple smug, though?
I was calling your comment smug, because of 1. implying it's unreasonable to say "kafkaesque" despite Apple setting up a system where you need to "read tea leaves" instead of believing what they tell you, and 2. phrasing it as that they "couldn't understand" the problem.
Your advice, as far as saying they use canned messages that merely resemble the actual problem, is very useful. But don't be mean to someone that doesn't know that. It's a major failing on Apple's part.
Then I'd gently suggest doing a bit of research on what type of person I am, before immediately assuming that I am being mean. I'm a pretty decent chap.
I understand that you are one of the most senior members of this community, and I certainly appreciate the work that y'all have done, trying to keep this from turning into an ugly community.
I really (truly) appreciate the decorum here, and sincerely do my best to respect that. It is my goal to be a positive, contributing member here. I may be mistaken, but I do believe that I have some contributions to make, here.
I may come across as a stuffy old fart, but that is a deliberate departure from my earlier days, when I was ... not that way.
> That "smugness" is actually a deliberate part of their brand.
I wasn't calling Apple smug, though?
I was calling your comment smug, because of 1. implying it's unreasonable to say "kafkaesque" despite Apple setting up a system where you need to "read tea leaves" instead of believing what they tell you, and 2. phrasing it as that they "couldn't understand" the problem.
Your advice, as far as saying they use canned messages that merely resemble the actual problem, is very useful. But don't be mean to someone that doesn't know that. It's a major failing on Apple's part.