You could add that "I'm asking because the process of typing an off-topic comment on a forum and waiting for replies strikes me as an inefficient way to get an answer to this question, and I'm genuinely trying to understand that thought process."
I highly doubt it would have performed worse than your strategy, which at best resulted in a derail about tone, and at worst scared off the person you were asking and others who may have otherwise taken time to give the deep and thoughtful answer you were looking for.
It seems clear that you find niceties and pleasantries to be not genuine or unnecessary, and I can sympathize, but they go a long way in terms of making people feel comfortable and opening up to you.
> It seems clear that you find niceties and pleasantries to be not genuine or unnecessary
Wrong. It seems clear you all like making assumptions and treating them as unshakeable truth.
I scarcely think that your suggested wording (your second attempt, keep in mind) would have satisfied even you without this conversational backdrop providing context.
> I highly doubt it would have performed worse than your strategy,
Those aren't the goalposts we're shooting for. You've subtly given yourself an easier target to hit than the one that was presented.
> Wrong. It seems clear you all like making assumptions and treating them as unshakeable truth.
Can you explain, then, why 1) your original post was devoid of any such language, and 2) you dismissed my suggestion, which added some, as being likely to cynically have the opposite effect of what was intended?
I get what you're saying. People often do couch cynicism and trolling in pleasantries. Which makes it difficult to appear genuine when asking a tough question like that. But that means you have to try extra hard if you want results, not give up entirely and go full autism on someone that clearly isn't going to respond well to that.
There's a perverse irony in the way your responses here exude condescension while ostensibly trying educate and inform about the sort of things that people respond to. Although it looks like you came here to argue (which now explains the presumptuousness), I didn't, and I'm not wasting any (more) of my time indulging you.
> I get what you're saying. People often do couch cynicism and trolling in pleasantries.
No, apparently you don't, because that's not at all what I said or what I'm trying to say. Aside from failing at that, you almost succeeded at deflecting, but not quite. The attempt to change the subject and avoid responding directly is yet more reason to stop this here.
> There's a perverse irony in the way your responses here exude condescension while ostensibly trying educate and inform about the sort of things that people respond to.
That's a fair point, and later last night I regretted having used some unhelpful rhetoric. I often struggle to resist that temptation. In my defense though I was only going toe to toe with someone who had already demonstrated a willingness to dispense with courtesy in the name of pure inquiry.
I highly doubt it would have performed worse than your strategy, which at best resulted in a derail about tone, and at worst scared off the person you were asking and others who may have otherwise taken time to give the deep and thoughtful answer you were looking for.
It seems clear that you find niceties and pleasantries to be not genuine or unnecessary, and I can sympathize, but they go a long way in terms of making people feel comfortable and opening up to you.