From: Michael Roy Ames (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Sun Oct 20 2002 - 13:35:44 MDT
> Soft is good.
Not necessarily. Soft may be more pleasant to read, but it may not provide
precise communication, and it may waste time.
> Our perceptions do not reflect reality
> %100. Our language is imprecise. We have emotions
> which we did not choose to have; we do not react only
> to the content of a message, rather to both the
> content and the style. Therefore there is a point to
> softening styles of speech, as well as styles of
Agreed. And the point is: if there is need to ingratiate yourself with your
readers, then one must write in a style that keeps them happy. But pandering to
the readers is not what SL4 is about AFAIK.
> One shouldn't judge posters at all, one should just
> strive try to clarify views and improve understanding.
> Such as "if you meant what you seem to have meant, X,"
> (statement X in as clear terms as Responder can
> manage), " then this seems to me incorrect, for the
> following reasons...".
There is an argument to be made for utility in judging posters as well as posts.
I shy away from neither. Judging a poster is not something to be avoided, any
more than judging a poster's ideas is to be avoided. Admittedly extrapolating a
viewpoint about a complete person from just a few posts is going to be very
error prone, but making the attempt to do so often produces useful information.
A larger 'pipe' is of course desirable when making assessments about someone.
Nothing beats 'face-to-face' communication... yet!
Far be it from me to disuade anyone from 'playing nice'. Just don't let it
interfere with making an effective argument, in an approriate setting (like this
is). I have witnessed too many occations when an intelligent person with a good
idea will keep thier mouth shut because they don't want to give offense. Such a
On a personal note: it *is* nice talking with you Yedidya :)
Michael Roy Ames
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed May 22 2013 - 04:00:35 MDT