It happens all the time. You’re in a meeting — usually an important meeting with lots of important people around a table — and you say something you think is brilliant. But instead of slapping you on the back, someone else at the table makes an irrefutable point that undermines your argument.
What you should say: “I agree with you.”
What you actually say: “I don’t disagree with you.”
That’s almost a double negative. And while, technically, it can be an expression of neutrality rather than agreement (like the difference between “agnostic” and “atheist”), we all know how it’s generally used: as a passive-aggressive form of agreement.
Passive-aggressiveness causes ulcers, people.
So next time, try something different. Just say, “You’re right!”
In terms of a past-perfect future tense passive-agressive indicative, I really can’t disagree with this post.
What planet are you on, Scott?
“I don’t disagree with you” means “You are skewered, but I am not going to do it right now.”
It’s the shot across the bow. It’s “you are so dead.” It’s “You have a little room, still, to recant your heresy.”
Grammatically, you are right. But we are talking about corporate code here…