I must be missing something.....
Poster A wrote:
Wetblankets where it finally came down to the fact she hates her co-workers and anything they do is wrong. (This re: my whingeing about my office holiday party, how the $$ was handled, etc.)
Er, I'm not clear on how my posts relate to this thread. And I don't know how you got "anything they do is wrong" from any of my posts. Would you care to explain?
Poster B then wrote:
Wetblanket, my perception of one of the other threads was that you had a problem, and some of the other posters felt the majority of your frustration was because you didn't like your co-workers and therefore "everything they do is wrong" from your standpoint. It wasn't something you said directly, just something other posters interpreted.
The impression I'm getting is that my comments were interpreted very negatively. I.e. I was not given the benefit of the doubt, and a very extreme conclusion was reached about me and my situation.
However, the co-workers I originally posted about were given the benefit of the doubt. Despite some pertinent facts about the unnecessary collection of funds and the weirdly high amount of money requested, many (not all) of the replies to my original post were along the lines of "it's not a lot of money", "don't be so difficult", etc. (yes, I'm paraphrasing, but that's the gist of it).
On the whole, I was perceived to be in the wrong - wrong from every angle.
So I'm trying to understand how things work here on e-hell and etiquette-wise in general.
What's the guideline re: the benefit of the doubt for parties in an etiquette dispute?