I'd sum this as unintended consequences of a curious break from stressful work. Also known as curiosity killed the cat. Thanks Hassath and Abhijeet for accepting my explanation and apology.
*I am now going to crawl away into a corner where I don't read too much email, it clearly can't be good for me.* Cheeni ---------- Forwarded message ---------- From: Srini Ramakrishnan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Date: Feb 8, 2008 8:40 AM Subject: Re: Introduction To: Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [+hassath] On Feb 8, 2008 7:39 AM, Abhijit Menon-Sen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > (Cc: to silk dropped.) > > At 2008-02-07 12:55:58 +0530, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > However there are characteristics to the introduction that smack of a > > computer geek. > > BTW, it isn't that I've dumped my extra motherboards on her side of the > desk, if you were wondering. She's building a couple of new machines to > experiment with something. Umm... but I never had that doubt in the first place. Wait! Is the unspoken question here something like why are you such a male chauvinist / immature jerk / unevolved person ? Hell no! Wow! Yeah, I was quite surprised when there was a lot of quiet silence and weird replies from people. I didn't understand it at first, but then I figured that people were misunderstanding whatever I had said. So, allow me to clear the air. a) Hassath's gender didn't even explicitly figure in my head until after I saw Jace's email. Jace's email made me realize that I and perhaps others had been assuming Hassath to be male, when there was a possibility that it might not be so. How "male chauvinist" of me to assume all geeks were men. I censured myself. But, why did I, who should know better leap to this conclusion? I explained to myself (mostly) and to the list my logic - the probability of a computer geek being male is higher. Ah, relief, I was merely being logical, not a male chauvinist. b) Five minutes using Google revealed me the first signs that Hassath may indeed be a woman, and hence my notice to the list of my possible mistake. Also a case study in how logic failed; but in a completely logical experiment, there is no need to apologize for betting on the majority outcome. Whereas in this particular social context my analysis is considered a faux pas. *sigh* Including the address was just to highlight that highly personal information like an address is easily found, but it still doesn't tell me much about Hassath. Especially about the social context of the discussion. Now the address is public information, easily found via a whois lookup, so I didn't think it would matter to include it. But then of course exposing the address of (anybody, but especially a woman) is generally considered an invitation to all sorts of bad things to happen to her, I understand, I apologize, but it was unintentional. My logical brain met a social context where it began looking weird. IMO, it was a game, of the harmless sort to fill out the incomplete picture that Hassath sent out. As Jace mentions, let the curious resort to the interweb. Now of course, I prefer transparency to opaqueness, hence I've included Hassath to apologize if there were any misgivings. This situation could have easily played out in a non-public space following the same logical course, but exposed to a public list after the the social context was better understood. In 20-20 hindsight, this seems better. Given my preference for transparency over opaqueness this is perhaps not going to be my first reaction, nevertheless something I should mull over. Finally, perhaps best would have been to curb my curiosity (I am curious about anything, a stone on the road can make me curious enough to climb a tree - such things have happened to me) and wait for someone, maybe Hassath herself to complete the picture. I think some of this explanation should go to silk, if you feel comfortable with it, I'd like to forward this email to Silk as well. Cheeni > > > However, > > > > Hassath Hassath > > 7B, Pocket B, SFS Apartments > > Mayur Vihar Phase 3 > > Delhi > > Postal Code:110096 > > Phone:+91.9811152926 > > I don't get it. What was the point you were trying to make here? (i.e. > "However, ..." what?) > > -- ams >
