Happy to oblige, DUDE,
>Dude,
> You are way out of line here.
>
> Here's what I guess she thought....
>
> Hmmmm.... I have seen Rod online a bunch today.....
> I sent him a message....
> He hasn't responsed.... I have never really interacted with this person.
> So I don't know if he is ignoring me or what...

I suspect you're exactly right.
But I see her message as putting the recipient "on the spot", so to speak, and that seems a curious way to try to get a response.
In other words, I equally suspect that her thought process included 'I need a way to tell the recipient that it's important to me so I'll try this'.
She seems to have asked a silly question regardless of the thought process... PATIENCE is sometimes required, and sometimes more than 1 day.
>
> I don't see PM's as an intrusion at all. Why would you? Is your time too
> precious to accept a message from another community member ?

I've seen LOTS of the more 'special' people around here with tag lines like 'Don't e-mail me - I don't answer personal e-mails on technical matters' or similar, and it sure strikes me that a UT Private amounts to exactly the same thing. So, if an e-mail is an intrusion then so is a private! Or is that too deep for you?
No, Privates to me always get a response. She didn't Private me or none of this would have come up.

So, Dude, you taking over from GeorgeT?

Just what was it that was so "out of line"?

>
> Also why is a message posted in a chatter section impolite? Please enlighten us...

If one wants to get the attention of a person, then address the message to the person. Don't use some roundabout method to get their attention. I feel the whole idea was to get the recipient's attention and this was a very impolite way to do so. Gets all kinds of people wondering all kinds of things, for no good reason.

DUDE
>
>
>Rodman
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>>>I've sent privates that weren't answered for days (1 even weeks) later. >>Most often people didn't notice and in some cases they were VERY busy.
>
>>>Privates *DO* amount to, in my opinion, INTRUSIONS into someone elses' >>time and space. I wouldn't be surprised if some people didin't answer such >>as a matter of "policy".
>
>>>I must tell you that I think *THIS* message by you is, at the very least, >>impolite.
>
>>>How is a person supposed to know you feel it is urgent if they didn't even >>notice it? Did you say in your message it was urgent?... if so I would >>suspect that even the most callous reader would send you a 'too busy right >>now' message BUT if you didn't say it was urgent, what could you expect?
>
>>>Some of us who fail to get answers to private messages try alternate >>sources and/or other means and I sure haven't seen anyone else bring this >>kind of issue up in the manner that you have here. I think there's no need >>for such "questions" here.
>
>>>Jim