[ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care debate)

[Damien Broderick]

At 04:05 PM 9/23/2008 -0700, Lee wrote:

>'Tis obvious to me the miscommunication here. Obviously when John
>was referring to "those dunces" he meant the "poor, mentally, physically
>disabled, etc.", but Damien merely seized upon the chance to have some
>fun by pretending that John was referring to the *subject* of the previous
>paragraph.
>
>There were no landminds in your post, John.

Godawmighty! What nonsense is this? By taking it literally, I was 
pointing out how John Clark's indignant misreading of BillK's post 
completely distorted and reversed what BillK had written. I wasn't 
*pretending* that this was what John's sentences meant (because he 
couldn't be bothered seeing what BillK had actually written). That 
*is* what they meant, read by the ordinary rules of English grammar.

Why this misreading of  John's? Why Lee's now? It might be worth 
exploring that.

Sometimes it's hard to tell if John Clark is just grabbing words at 
random as an opportunity for a rant or being playful himself.

I realize that spelling this out is tedious and offensive and 
schoolmasterly, and that emails are hasty  notes flung off with very 
little care taken to make sure we actually convey what we meant. But 
the people on this list are smarter than that, and shouldn't need 
excuses. The posts from Harvey, for example, or Stathis, or Damien 
Sullivan, or Emlyn or BillK (which are also genuinely playful and 
delightful) are clear, and responsive to the previous thread rather 
than to some madly skewed strawcritter. Lee's are usually fine. Not this time.

Damien Broderick