I started the same thread in rec.arts.sf.written, with a bit more participation. Here's the gist :
1) Tell truth. 2) Tell it succinctly. 3) Tell it interestingly. 4) Tell it on a priority basis, most important first. 5) As you tell it, observe feedback from listeners. 6) When listeners are confused, reduce requirement 2. 7) When listeners are bored, increase requirement 3. 8) When listeners are discouraged or unhappy, revise priorities of 4. 9) Permit listeners to disengage at their own discretion. 10) When listeners have absorbed your store of truth, get their truths to supplement your own. 11) When no listeners are available seek them out. 12) When nobody want to listen, shut up. 13) While shut up, polish your English communication skills. Lonnie Courtney Clay On Wednesday, August 17, 2011 7:15:49 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > Altruism / do for another > > vs. > > Selfishness / do for oneself > > > four variations.... also > > Altruism / do for oneself > > vs. > > Selfishness / do for another > > > Your... communicator.... is "asking" for one sort of motivated > reaction.... but has contacted an addressee who replies with another > motivated reaction..... > > Where do you (Lonnie, in proxy for the communicator) want to go from > there? > > > On Aug 15, 1:33 pm, Lonnie Clay <clayl...@comcast.net> wrote: > > Thanks for taking the time to reply. What I had in mind at the time of > > typing up the original post was the classic "message in a bottle" where > the > > writer implores "Whoever receives this message, please send help to us. > We > > are stranded at ... and desperately beset by problems." > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay > > > > On Monday, August 15, 2011 10:10:12 AM UTC-7, nominal9 wrote: > > > > > In other words, is the source obligated to relentlessly pursue > > > receivers until finally the truth is understood? / lonnie > > > > > Fair Warning is sufficient, I would think.... > > > Then it's up to the "addressee".....( i.e., my chosen term for the > > > recipient of a communication) > > > > > Possessor... Communicator... Transposer... Addressee.... > > > > > On Aug 13, 9:24 pm, Lonnie Clay <clay...@comcast.net> wrote: > > > > A) I see a problem. > > > > B) Ask me if I care. > > > > A) You might, if you knew more. > > > > B) Try me. > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > B) I've heard enough, I can't make heads nor tails of it, go away. > > > > A) If you reasoned better, then you would understand. > > > > B) You say I'm stupid!? > > > > A) Well, I could teach you how to understand what I am saying. It > will > > > take > > > > a while. > > > > B) Got unlimited long distance? > > > > A) Yes, why? > > > > B) Make random calls until you find someone who cares. BYE! > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > . > > > > A) Hello? I see a problem. > > > > > > The question which I pose to the group regards the ethics of > > > communication. > > > > At what point does the obligation to tell the truth shift from the > source > > > to > > > > the receiver. In other words, is the source obligated to relentlessly > > > > pursue > > > > receivers until finally the truth is understood? > > > > > > Lonnie Courtney Clay -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Epistemology" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/epistemology/-/ed1X52Yj5BAJ. To post to this group, send email to epistemology@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to epistemology+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/epistemology?hl=en.
