--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, new.morning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Even with the clearest writing and logic, if one prefaces 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. 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. ------------ And this "model" helps to clarify intent. IMO, if someone is supportive, nuturing, helpful, nonjudgmental, even laughs with and smiles with the "helpee", and offers advice on clarity of communications (or whatever), then I see their intent as really wanting to help people be clearer in their communications. And perhap make a small part of the world a better place. Or simply that they love great writing -- which is clear, and unambiguous to many if not all ears. On the other hand, IMO, if someone offers advice on communications clarity, and seeds it liberally with with snideness, condescending comments, plays one-up (wo)manship games, is insulting, casts a superior tone, is rude or offers harsh remarks, I sense that their motives and intents are, well, get off on being snide, condescending, one-up (wo)manship, insulting, self-serving, and superior. Advice on good communications, or what ever, is only a pretense, a vehicle. And I did say the word "motives". Which I think, and have multiply expressed, that trying to diagnose and identify the motives of an individual poster, particualrly in the context of calling them an asshole, is uncalled for and inappropriate. And is against the FFL guidelines. On the other hand, discussion of motives on a general sense, in the context of discussing human nature, and types of personality, can be both interesting and productive, IMO. Not always, but can be.
