※ 引述《DIVANDCONV (體虛暫不占卜...Orz)》之銘言：
: 這只能說是對於隱私的定義不同，樓上有人很正經的回文啦！我就懶得再打了
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is correct. However, the point is
if you do not know a person very well, should you assume their privacy
including more topics or less?
This determines you will be liked or disliked, polite or impolite.
If you think this is your standard for privacy, and you assume people in the
whole world should be the same as you, then you are simply not socialised.
The existence of divergence of definition of privacy is not a good excuse
for any non-sense question touching the listener's 'privacy'.
Polite people always think of others before speaking.
By the way, if you do know the person very well, then I believe you know
what to do.
For people qualified to be refered to 'toi',
there can be no privacy nor secret between them.
--
: 這只能說是對於隱私的定義不同，樓上有人很正經的回文啦！我就懶得再打了
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
This is correct. However, the point is
if you do not know a person very well, should you assume their privacy
including more topics or less?
This determines you will be liked or disliked, polite or impolite.
If you think this is your standard for privacy, and you assume people in the
whole world should be the same as you, then you are simply not socialised.
The existence of divergence of definition of privacy is not a good excuse
for any non-sense question touching the listener's 'privacy'.
Polite people always think of others before speaking.
By the way, if you do know the person very well, then I believe you know
what to do.
For people qualified to be refered to 'toi',
there can be no privacy nor secret between them.
--
All Comments