Let me better align the intent of my words with both the words themselves -- and how I know various people (who in my mind also represent various types and profiles) will probably react to it.
The latter two are not necessarily the same. Something can be gramatically correct and clear, and still offend or be misunderstood by some. Clear writing, to me, is the art of ever refining and bridging the gap between intent and the words themselves. And them, between the words themselves and how some may interpret them. One of the things I love about FFL is to watch normally intelligent people, even normally intelligent "enlightened" people, read clear words on a page, and react to some figment of their imagination, some reactive smoke and mirrors, that is quite different from the words themselves. Thus, when I write, both when "on vactation" (per Turqs fine essay this morning), or at work -- where my effectiveness and ultimately my livlihood depends on clear communications, I write for multiple audiences and "voices", or ears. I strive to make my intent clear, through preciseness of language. But beyond that, I try to understand how many different ears will hear these "finely honed" words. I often realize, as clear as the words are to me, certain "ears" I have known will misunderstand my intent and react to something that I did not intend. Thus, I not only try to be clear, but also to "error proof" my language. Sometimes, casually, here "on vacation", there is not time to do that thoroughly, In casual language, and particularly among friends, implied intent is condensed, contracted. The more this is done, the meaning needs to be found in the context. If you say something that might be insulting to some ears, but say it to a friend, they quickly reject the possibility that you might have meant the "mean" thing, because they know your context -- that you would never say that to them with that intended meaning. Sometimes on FFL, I think there is that blurring. Ones assumes a casual and friendly set of ears, and speaks according. Yet some expect more formal development of language, and do not assume, friendliness, and react negatively to things with no negative intent. Judy is one of those "ears" that I do and will eternally write "to". Which is a compliment. I ask, would this be precise enough for Judy's sensibilities? Would Judy be set her off in some way by this, counter to my intent? Would she be offended by the condensation of words that to me imply one thing, but may mean, be interpreted, as something else to her. Actually, Barry is another such voice, as is Jim, Peter, Tom, my brother, my father, half former dozen girl friends, various work peers, and many others I won't bore you with. With each, I have had the experience of intending the communication of one idea, feeling or concept, and have realized they have understood it in a different way than I intended. Some of this is funny, like ambiguous sentence structures. "He yelled at the homeless man while peeing in the street. Who was peeing, the man or the homeless person? The former is pretty funny. Regarding the snippet of my recent post, > > NM: > > If Judy or anyone calls you a liar or fuckhead, they should > > > be banned for a week. Thats gratuatious flaming and is against > > > the GUIDELINES. [caps added] both my language, expressing my intent was 'condensed, and probably not clear to some, not did I well error proof it. Let me try again. "If Judy or anyone calls you a liar or fuckhead on FLL, then, IMO, they should be banned from FFL for a week. If, hypothetically, they did call you those things, then, that would be insensitive flaming and that is against the FFL GUIDELINES. [caps added]" That more precisely communicates the intent of my prior snippet. Whether its well error proofed, we will see. But is more formal, tending towards legalistic, rather than the casual, condensed, language among friends. One note, feedback, for anyone having interest in such, effective communications, IMO, also depends on the receptivity of the audience. Even with the clearest writing and logic, if your preface it , or end it, with snide, condescending, one-up (wo)manship, insulting or self-serving remarks, (and I am not accusing any one of doing that), then you cut of receptivity. My reaction to such is that "well, the point may be logically correct, but it coming form such a dark place, its missing something. I think I will pass on the point that person was advocating until I figure out what is missing." On the other hand, if someone makes the same point in a supportive way, I am more receptive to it. And in that, it is more clearly communicated. Even if it uses the same words as the former. --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <no_reply@> > wrote: > > > > > > > > NM: > > If Judy or anyone calls you a liar or fuckhead, they should > > > be banned for a week. Thats gratuatious flaming and is against > > > the GUIDELINES. [caps added] > > > > Judy > > It sure ain't gratuitous when it's in response to a > > post headed, "Time to vote -- Who's a bigger liar > > and fuckhead? John or Edg?" > > > > All of my discussions today has in the context of the guidelines. > > Right. But you used me as an example, as if I > had gratuitously flamed Edg and had thereby > violated the guidelines. That was a mistake. > I was correcting you. If you want to use me as > an example of someone who has gratuitously flamed > somebody, don't use this exchange with Edg, find > an instance where I actually *did* that. > > These kinds of mistakes get ingrained into the > Common Wisdom. I'd just as soon not be known as > the person who flamed Edg by calling him a liar > and a fuckhead without any provocation. > > Got it now? Or do you need to have me go over > it again for you? >
