Hal, though I appreciate why you wrote what you did, I will have to
agree with Mick on this one. I think we have gotten so used to the
online means of communication that we tend to write the same way we
speak. We don't always use correct grammar, punctuation or spelling
when communicating "informally"
paragraph of the post you called on the carpet a couple of times, but
that is nothing unusual. I actually had less difficulty understanding
her first sentence than I did one of yours. I love Aussie slang, and
it only took me a second to see that she was asking the same question
a previous poster, Jen, had asked.
Your sentence: "I also know that you're not going to scream that I
disagree with you and that you're someone I can openly disagree with
and there not be a nasty shouting war or pouting." was harder for me
to understand the meaning of. It wasn't until I read it phonetically
rather than grammatically that I understood what you were saying. When
read as though someone were speaking, it makes perfect sense. But if
you are trying to read it as the written word, it takes some going
over and work. I'm sure I have made many errors in this post that may
be pointed out to me, but that's my point. It makes perfect sense in
"speak", but maybe not as much in "writing".
You are someone I respect greatly and you have a great amount of
knowledge and experience to share. I just hate to see it when you rub
someone about something so trivial when there are much more important
things at hand. By the way, your analogy of the grocery clerk is not
entirely correct. You may see it that way, but I assure you that you
will usually be labeled as a "complainer"
management if the complaint is trivial. Very few people accept trivial
complaints gracefully. Just my opinion. :)
Shana
--- In mlmsurvivorsclub@
>
> On Saturday 28 July 2007, mick wenlock wrote:
> > actually Hal the first paragraph is very readable and understandable
> > - I had no problem with it. Just because it uses Australian slang
> > doesn't make it incomprehensible. It just adds some personality to
> > the conversation.
>
> I had no problem with the Aussie slang. I did have to reread the first
> sentence 2-3 times before I knew what she was saying, though, and still
> had problems after that with understanding it.
>
> > This is a conversation, not elocution lessons. If somebody writes
> > something I do not understand then I just skip it. I don't give
> > lectures.
>
> Actually, the reason I wrote what I did is because I think this person
> is capable of making some quite good points, but I know I skip most of
> what she says for the reasons I indicated. In many ways, pointing out
> something like that is a favor. If I go into a store and am treated
> rudely by a clerk and just leave, never to go back, I'm letting the
> clerk hurt the store, but if I point out to the manager what is going
> on, then I'm helping them and potentially keeping them from losing
> business.
>
> Yes, it's a discussion, but there are minimal standards for just a
> discussion. If I get invited over to someone's house to watch TV for
> an evening and show up in my underwear only, what does that say about
> me and how will they see me? There are minimal standards for almost
> any human interaction.
>
> > Sorry hal but all the "I am not attacking the writer.." waffle
> > doesn't mean that your post is anything other than an ad hominem.
>
> Yes, and now. I'm focusing on the behavior, not on her. It's a fine
> line, but it's one I had to work with all the time in special ed. It's
> just as if someone makes a long post talking about how wonderful their
> new MLM is and any of us take it apart. We may be focusing on their
> lack of logic, their lack of reasoning, their opinions and so on. This
> is focusing on the writer's lack of effort in communicating.
>
>
> I also know that you're not going to scream that I disagree with you
and
> that you're someone I can openly disagree with and there not be a nasty
> shouting war or pouting. I see your points and considered them all
> before posting. Personally, I could barely understand what the writer
> was saying, otherwise I would not have responded as I did.
>
> Hal
>
> > Mick
> >
> > Hal Vaughan <hal@...> wrote:
> > This isn't meant as an attack on who the writer is or what
> > she thinks, but it is a point to all those who don't care enough to
> > make their posts readable. (And I repeat that paragraph a number of
> > times in this message to make the point it's not about her, it's
> > about posts written so poorly it's hard to know what is being said.)
> >
> > On Saturday 28 July 2007, bitch_n_pack wrote:
> > > ---hi, i like jen also am wondering why?? you would be using so
> > > much of this stuff.
> > > if you have a dog off his tucker hes crook usually. or the foods
> > > not appealing, or its just plain too well fed..
> > > a fast day also works! and its free!
> >
> > This isn't meant as an attack on who the writer is or what she
> > thinks, but it is a point to all those who don't care enough to make
> > their posts readable.
> >
> > I stopped reading this post here. Why? I couldn't follow it or
> > understand it. I'm not trying to be judgemental or condescending,
> > but this has come up before. I have a learning disability and,
> > without spellcheck, would have a terrible time making sure my email
> > was readable (no, not dyslexia, but not far off). I work hard and
> > have to retype many words and sentences because I get letters and
> > words mixed up. I do that because I want people to understand what
> > I'm writing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > "Yo, Brutus, you just glad to see me or is that a knife under your
> > cloak?"Julius Caesar
> >
> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
Change settings via the Web (Yahoo! ID required)
Change settings via email: Switch delivery to Daily Digest | Switch format to Traditional
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
__,_._,___
No comments:
Post a Comment