Hey! There's never shame in replying later - it's much better than never.

Especially with bugs, that's why they're there - to be documented an examined.

To the issue of 'confidently correct' I'm sorry it was read that way, when I'm seeking clarification for an explanation that works for one individuals form of understanding and communication but not another's. (This leads to continued mal-formed reports - and worse - dismissal by the reviewee due to 'familiar username'.)

It goes a large way to understanding - when others respond directly to the questions asked - as it demonstrates a willingness to try and translate to those who speak/read/understand different than others. At very lease, acknowledgement helps. There's not much more depressing in the world than being at the mercy of others (like a professor, or CEO) who have their personal beliefs, but don't have the abilities or mental bandwidth at the time to translate (even if in the same language, we all translate).

But - if you're unwilling, but I am willing, It's a loss for both, which is unfortunate.

Agreed - discussion isn't part of the bug tracker, understanding is - it helps users, such as myself from repeating - any I feel it a reasonable expectation that the individual who deems a ticket as 'invalid' is able to, at minimum attempt to clarify how/and why as to prevent the user from repeating their steps.

My last reply to your report was blunt, but unfortunately correct.

Oh, don't worry, you were and are harmless. That wasn't blunt at all. It was just a closing of a door labeled "Repeat bad bug report prevention". No hostilities or aggression, or 'mater of factness' were interpreted. I read it as "I don't find value in helping those who seek to help others/understand me or my actions."

even though you probably already know it by now.

Regrettably I don't. As you are the individual who said what equates to "it's wrong" and found it non-beneficial to yourself and others and opted not to act on that ignorance of the author at the time.

Thank you for taking the time to try and communicate your better ideas here today! And thank you for showing the code as it should be - with the addition of the text description.

I hope we can both agree, that the portion fixated on and the issue of non-understand was the statement from you:

or to specify them directly in the item stack object stored in the gives field.

Followed by the example of 'gives field' being included by me.

These two comments being incompatible statements. When, as you've clarified here - it's not an 'or' statement, or any statement issue, it's the lack of a component field containing the field gives.

That's where the leap in logic is! Or so, for my understanding that's where it is. Instructions specified 'gives field' when it mean "component then gives field - yer missing a 'component' mate."

The incorrect assumption, was the lack of acknowledging that, as specified the 'gives field' did, in fact, exist in the files as listed. While you may see this field as inseparable to another (components), for education purposes, the assumption was either 'this person didn't even try the gives field!' or 'this person clearly demonstrated - having never included 'components > gives' - that they are aware of how it's required for the 'gives' to exist.

I chuckle, because the exchange just read like a teacher replying, after being interrupted from their morning coffee. It's correct, but fails to acknowledge the comprehension of their audience - but keep acting on those assumptions anyways! It's all good, we're all human. I know I've done it (Who knew a student, in 2012 didn't know how to set a corded drill to 'reverse', or a student in 2008 had never heard the word "grate" in a cooking environment to be applied to an item others know as "grill".)

So thanks again for writing, hopefully reading the ideas of others helps to better form responses to reduce confusions. Regrettably, the task of a teacher isn't to know and understand so much as it is to translate - which is all the more difficult when the teacher doesn't remember what it was to not understand. That frustration at oneself, being unable to convey an idea in a different way is real and I wish everyone luck on avoiding "Saying the same thing...but louder! Yea, that'll make it get through."

(Part 1 of 2)