On 2/20/06, Phillip Rhodes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Yes, I'm perfectly aware I could have gone alone, and I've > > > had plenty of lunches at CF by myself. :-) > > > > Phil, no need to get all touchy. My message wasn't at > > all serious (you did see the :-) at the end of my sentence, right?) > > > <not to be taken seriously> > > Tanner, my message wasn't at > all serious (you did see the :-) at the end of my sentence, right?) > > </not to be taken seriously> > > > For the record, e-mail SUCKS as a form of communication. Too > much subtle stuff gets lost, even using emoticons and pseudo-xml tags. >
I LONG AGO learned that the best policy is to give the sender/poster the benefit of every doubt when reading. It's far better to assume that your chances of correctly interpreting the tone of an email or posting is only 50/50 instead of the 90% most readers assume. http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70179-0.html?tw=wn_index_2 This isn't really new news, just a new study. I remember Hiltz and Turoff writing about this in their book "The Network Nation" back in the 1970s. -- Rick DeNatale Visit the Project Mercury Wiki Site http://www.mercuryspacecraft.com/ -- TriLUG mailing list : http://www.trilug.org/mailman/listinfo/trilug TriLUG Organizational FAQ : http://trilug.org/faq/ TriLUG Member Services FAQ : http://members.trilug.org/services_faq/
