I was very surprised when Mac, the columnist and respondent, told me:

This is Mac. One more addendum. Maezawa-san previously warned that repeatedly adding to a post would be considered a rule violation going forward, but this is something I feel strongly about, so I hope you’ll forgive me. Basil-san, I don’t feel like you’re picking on me at all. If anything, I’m grateful that you’ve given me the chance to explain myself. By the way, do you run a business with employees, Basil-san? Are you involved in investing or self-employment? Since I have people working for me, I’m sensitive to both controlling others—and being controlled—through money. The person who asked this question might not work in a position where they manage people, or perhaps they’re at least no longer involved in the day-to-day operations. Why am I taking this so seriously? I think it’s probably because I absolutely hate being controlled myself.(^^;

I’m Basil, a male member. Mac, thanks for keeping me company while I killed some time. I’m not trying to pick a fight, but since I didn’t explain myself very well either, I’d like to add a little clarification. As for the two minutes, if we’re talking about work, then you’re absolutely right: two minutes is two minutes to me as well. Many of the other respondents seem to have interpreted it the same way. Generally speaking, I don’t read every single sentence in the questions posted here in a strictly literal way before answering. I look at the overall tone and give a quick response. This time, the question clearly described something impossible, so I took “two minutes” as nothing more than an example and answered 2707 without giving it much thought. At the same time, I found it strange that your response ended up provoking the questioner. I couldn’t understand how a question like this had turned into such a situation. Since the focus was on the two minutes, and the trigger seemed to be wording that came across as a personal attack, I simply commented based on my own assumptions about the questioner’s true intentions. As for the part about controlling people with money, I only skimmed your response to 2707 and didn’t think about it deeply, so I couldn’t understand what you meant based on my own reading of it. I’m in my late fifties, so my mind is only getting more set in its ways. I generally enjoy reading your comments, Mac. Please just laugh it off as a difference in approach between someone who takes this section seriously and someone like me who does it as a quick way to kill some time. P.S. One last word regarding Mac’s additional follow-up. I do have a fair number of direct reports, but I work for a B2B company, so I’m not personally handing money directly to subordinates or individuals. Compared with you, Mac, I think I have little sense of what it means to control people with money. I’ve also never felt that I was being controlled by someone financially.

I’m Mack, a columnist. Basil-san, I found your opinion interesting. Since it also serves as an answer to the questioner, let me explain my thoughts again. First, I was honestly stunned when Basil-san said, “If we interpret ‘a prompt reply’ as meaning you must always respond to a LINE message within two minutes.” Do most people really read it that way? For someone like me, who’s somewhat neurodivergent, two minutes means two minutes. If a work specification said that, I would design it accordingly. I’m not nitpicking Basil-san’s wording—that’s genuinely how I understand it. When someone tells me that interpretation is wrong, it actually gives me a slight sense of fear. I’m older and have adapted to society, so I’m used to it by now, but still. On the other hand, I was also surprised by this comment: “You’re overthinking it so much that your original answer doesn’t convey at all that Mack’s point was probably that women have things they want to do too, and that it isn’t right to restrict their freedom that much just because you’re paying them.” Let me explain the thought process in my head: 1. The questioner demands that she reply to a LINE message within two minutes. 2. If I were a woman and someone told me “two minutes,” I’d desperately feel that I couldn’t be even one second late. 3. To keep that up for 24 hours… Even if I were being paid, that would be too much. Just because someone is rich doesn’t mean there aren’t things they should and shouldn’t do. Don’t women in these relationships have any human rights? That’s what made me angry. At the same time, I thought: 1. Come to think of it, I sent Papuwa-san a LINE, but it still hasn’t been marked as read. 2. Looking at the time of Papuwa-san’s post, it was after I sent the LINE. Had Papuwa-san been looking at the question box? 3. Right—I should write that although Papuwa-san hasn’t read my LINE, I’m not angry with them, and use that to teach this arrogant questioner a lesson. That’s how I came up with my answer. I’m puzzled—and honestly a little sad—that my intention didn’t get across. I really am. But I’m 60, after all. I’ve always been this way, and I can’t change now. I understand that just because we’re speaking the same Japanese, we shouldn’t assume that our intentions are automatically getting through to each other. Still, it’s a shame. Let’s both try to be more understanding—or rather, I’m probably the minority here, so please don’t persecute me.（笑）

I’m Basil, a male member. It’s entertaining to watch from the sidelines, but once again, there seems to be some trouble involving Mac. This time, I’ll comment from the questioner’s perspective. The whole thing started with https://universe-club.jp/help/questions/view/2704, but if the phrase “a prompt reply” is understood as meaning “always replying within two minutes on LINE,” then it’s a perfectly ordinary question. That’s how I read it too. Expecting someone to always reply within two minutes is obviously unrealistic. I don’t know what the questioner really intended, but the fact that only this part included a specific number was where the comedy began. Mac then latched onto the words “within two minutes” and made sarcastic comments about social media addiction and not receiving a reply from Papuwa. So it seems to me that the questioner fired back by using the same social media and Papuwa references in a pointed way. Surely everyone understands that no such social media platform exists. Incidentally, the point was twisted so much that Mac’s intended message—“Women have things they want to do as well, so it probably isn’t right to restrict their freedom that much with money”—is completely unclear from the original answer. I can’t help feeling it was an after-the-fact justification, along the lines of simply arguing back whenever someone says something. To the questioner: Asking aggressive questions aimed at respondents whose answers you don’t like goes against the purpose of this section, so please tone it down. I woke up early on my day off, so I spent some time killing time.

I’m Date◎Yume, a male member. I completely understand how you feel. Taken at face value, this is an amusing question and answer, but let’s both refrain from posting questions or answers that clearly identify a specific individual. Personally, I enjoy reading them, but I feel that some of the wording I’ve seen doesn’t really fit the purpose of an anonymous Q&A box. A little is probably fine, but when it goes too far, it makes everyone uncomfortable—the person asking, the person being asked, and the people reading.