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

[Lee Corbin]

Damien writes

> 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.

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.

Lee



> 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