[ExI] miscommunication (was: Yet another health care debate)
lcorbin at rawbw.com
Wed Sep 24 00:46:39 UTC 2008
> 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
>>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.
Sorry. I thought that you were just reacting to his last paragraph.
I admit to not having recalled the jist of Bill's post adequately
while reading John's. I appreciate the correction.
> 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
More information about the extropy-chat