Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Merlin333, post: 715576, member: 32004"] [b]Hmmmm[/b] This is getting [I]"curiouser"[/I] and [I]"curiouser"[/I]. There are several things you said on which we agree about [I]"reading things on different levels... you and your daughter seeing the same thing and taking different inferences"[/I]. this is the heart of communicating. Each speaker/writer knows (sometimes not) the message they are trying to convey. Each reader/viewer knows (sometimes not) what they heard/saw. It is attention to the third element of communication that let's the reader know their intention was accurately [I](not correctly or properly)[/I] conveyed with clarity and fidelity to the meaning of the communication. Often, from feedback or response, the speaker learns meanings and subjects not originally intended and whether what was meant was received or not. Everything communicated has different levels and they are sometimes interpreted accurately sometimes inaccurately, seldom are any communications stripped of socio-economic-ethno-education-background (and other) filters. This is often why strangers struggle to be understood and people with similarities, familiarity and history understand more easily. Clearly what you wrote could be interpreted, I wont use your word "attack", but as critical or having "misunderstood" what I was saying. Criticism is fine and can give rise to a response/reaction. Such a simple a thing as saying [I]"your post (sorry blog)"[/I] - twice not being under time constraint and in an easy-edit environment, gives a clear suggestion of some additional meaning. Response/reaction to what was written can give rise to what can be interpreted as a necessity to defend for example: your remark [I]"...that it is very easy to assume that all [B]other[/B] players are donkeys or fish, rather than looking at oneself and our own possible weaknesses".[/I] From my perspective of what I [I]meant [/I]to convey that remark is plain silly and opposite the very words written - I am sure most won't feel that way. Anyone who knows me knows better. My view of things I have posted here could not be further from your interpretation. Almost everyone who has contacted me on [I]Charles Linebeck's[/I] statement for example get's it. As a matter of fact this is from a lecture meant to dress down a group of smartassed, know-it-all, 18 year old sophomore, scholarship kids who [U]all[/U] failed a test simply because they thought they knew everything. I was in that class. It was the beginning, for me, to understand the lessons most adults get when reading those lines. The listener/viewer never misunderstands but always uses their own faculties, however base or refined, to interpret the message. It is incumbent to the person wishing to be understood to have and employ the tools necessary to convey the message intended. This is why communication is interesting, full of errors and [U]ripe for improvement for by everyone.[/U] After all most people want to be understood. Finally, I am aware that the way I said some things I did may be "misunderstood", some I have inserted purposely and have left as examples of what I am [I]trying[/I] to explain. Can you find them? lol [I]Jon Holt (Merlin333 :cool:) [/I] [I]Oh Yeah: I bet more people have a clue about "Cool Hand Luke" than you think.. [/I] [/QUOTE]

Verification

Search

Reply to thread

About CardsChat

Our Community

Our Site

Follow us