Exactly identical is a tautology, I wouldn't want to share or visit an office with someone like this. If you think I'm being trivial I suggest you re-examine your actions.

Maybe they just wanted to show it to YOU? Dunno, I am very patient person so I would have just watched the damn thing and smiled, applauded and said what a nice film, then say I need to continue working.

I'd already seen the video when B was gone and they knew that because everyone had seen it.

Re: Maniac, you think I screwed up here?

Yep, I think you screwed up here. You've made a mountain out of a mole hill. Your co-worker now doesn't feel at home in her own office, a place she may spend more time at than anywhere else, this isn't the best way to get the most out of people.

She's not my subordinate, I only outrank here. I don't want to get anything out of her and she's not at home. That's the whole point, right? I feel comfortable at my office in a not-at-home kind of place. How is the coffee room not the ideal place for this kind of thing?

These situations are so hard to judge. Social situations are composed of so many smaller and bigger things you do on a daily basis for each other. Do you get coffee for each other? Do you compliment each other on a job well done? Are you open about weaknesses? So many subtleties to consider. (I don't know if you've read Covey, but I am a firm believer in what he calls emotional bank accounts: small daily actions add up - or go in the red)

In general though, if you share an office with A, then I tend to think it is equally yours and A's, regardless of rank. Why do you say that A hangs out annoyingly at your office - it's A's office too right?

Would you have shown a video there to others disturbing A? How would A have reacted? If you think the mirror image would have (and should have) been the same, then I tend to think you at least did what you thought was right. If you think the reverse would be (or should be) different, then I understand why A would feel less at home in his/her own office, since you implicitly convey that it is more your office than his/her office.

Isn't 'exactly identical' a pleonasm and not a tautology. They're nor exactly identical I think.

Anyway, I would factor in the length of the video. And are these Dutch colleagues. If they are, I don't quite understand the emphasis on rank?

Re: MoW
Why do you say that A hangs out annoyingly at your office - it's A's office too right?
-Again, it's an office, she often has coffee here, even when the coffee room is free.

Would you have shown a video there to others disturbing A? How would A have reacted?
-No, I certainly wouldn't, and I *certainly* wouldn't if the coffee room had been available. And I would *certainly* ask for permission of the others, including those below in rank, to give a demonstration, promising to keep the sound down and indicating a time that such a thing would take (even if the other person had an idea of the time, cause he saw it before). So no, that would not be my strategy.

No, they're not Dutch colleagues.

The video would have taken 15 minutes and I had a deadline that day. But as I said, this happens all the time. If it was just the video, I wouldn't have minded at all. It's the accumulation MoW talked about that disturbs me.

@peplin - tautology and pleonasm are closely related but I think using synonyms next to one another is generally considered a tautology where as using more words than is necessary to convey meaning is generally a pleonasm. There is a an arguement to say that are tautologies are pleonasms but not all pleonasms are tautologies.

To say that *all* ....

I share an office with somebody else. It's common for both of us to bring in a friend and work on something, but almost always we would ask if it was OK with the other person or whether we should go elsewhere. Now, permission is always given, but I think that deference is only polite. Offices are provided for work, and in a shared office, neither party should do something that makes it unsuitable for the other person to do their required work. rh's situation would have been tricky if there weren't an alternative, but I don't think it was that tricky as was, unless he was rude or abrasive in how he asked. There's a very polite way to ask, and to simultaneously provide an explanation, and if that is what he used, then I think A and C were wrong.

Thanks semck. Then I have all the information I need :-)

I also believe the keyword here is coffee room, a great place for these things.

I guess the question in my mind about the coffee room is how busy it would be. If there are people going in and out of it all the time, it might not be so great for what they wanted to do?

The coffee room is not particularly busy at that time of day, no, and was empty all the time during their little show. It's only really busy around lunch time. Also, everybody had seen the video already, so no secret would have been divulged even if people were walking in and out.

Redhouse - i think you're falling into the trap of asking for advice but are so convinced that what you did was right you will defend it to the hilt. I'm not saying you were wrong, it is impossible to know the social dynamic here but I think C's reaction here is telling. If A had overstepped the mark by presuming it was OK to watch a video she had made in her office then I think C would have said something like, 'yeah, sorry buddy didn't mean to intrude' and left the room to go follow A. Because A was already out of the room, C has no reason to stand up for her unless he feels strongly that you're being a bit of a dick.

Have you considered that your pressure of work made you act in a way you wouldn't have done if you didn't have a pressing deadline? If it was an ordinary work day would you have been able to tolerate the intrusion more easily?

Both A and C are considered to be not very sympathetic persons to begin with. C has lots of problems in particular with everyone who works directly with him. A has other issues that people started to note recently.

i was wrong you are clearly NOT trying to justify your actions.

\end sarcasm

Well you immediately posted your judgment on the situation and I thought your response was a tat heavy-handed.

"If you think I'm being trivial I suggest you re-examine your actions."

I thought to myself, having discussed the situation here as well, wow, wait a second, the least thing that it is is that this situation is not as clear-cut as it seems, which is why I started justifying myself.

semck, on the contrary, had some thoughts on particular points of my story that he thought had a special significance to it and as I assigned the same significance to them as he did, I thought he was the one who best understood what exactly had been going on here.

But, I do take your judgment into account, it's just that your take on the situation doesn't resonate with my personality, which is admittedly very nasty :-) (particularly during Diplomacy, as MadMarx pointed out, although he can't beat me, but that aside)