Text 7865, 105 rader
Skriven 2005-01-23 08:52:51 av John Hull (1:379/1.99)
   Kommentar till text 7844 av Darryl Perry (1:106/324)
Ärende: Re: Believing
=====================
22 Jan 05 18:59, Darryl Perry wrote to John Hull:

 DP> No, I did not read that, but have read your quoted text of what he 
 DP> said.  I find it funny that he would take exception to the 'stereotyping' 
 DP> issue, since that seems to be the core of the problem that I have with 
 DP> him.  It flies in the face of where it's ok for him to do it, but not ok 
 DP> for others. BTW, when I said 'you all', I did in fact mean 'you all'.  If 
 DP> he would take the time to read what I wrote, he would understand that.  I 
 DP> was talking about 'you all' in a collective sense, i.e. specific 
 DP> individuals in this group, not a generalization of conservatives.  So it 
 DP> seems that he's trying to make something out of nothing.  

First of all, what someone says in here is, by necessity, subject to
interpretation because we aren't sitting face to face having this discussion. 
Language is more than just individual words strung together.  Language is
living thing comprised of the written and spoken word, and sound and sight.  On
a day to day basis, we depend on audio and visual cues when talking to others,
or when listening to the TV, etc.  In the written word, it is imperative that
the writer provide those cues for the reader by how he writes. Most people
don't make their living writing, so they don't get the practice they need to
communicate effectively in a written manner.

What you say is interpreted by the reader without any of those audio or visual
cues, so there is a good chance that what you meant when you wrote something
comes across in a completly different manner when someone else reads it.  There
is also a tendency for people to misinterpret what is meant when people who are
used to talking to each other and have intimate knowledge of each other throw
comments back and forth.

 DP> Correcting me on my grammar doesn't win points with me either.

Again, more than likely due to misinterpreting what was meant.  As Ed was
pointing out, Perot got into trouble for some of the things he said because he
used language and phraseology that many people didn't understand.  Thus they
came to a wrong conclusion.  That is how I understood what Ed was saying, but
then, as I said, I've known Ed for many, many years and understand how he
writes.  You don't.  Its as simple as that.


 DP> On 01-22-05, John Hull said...

 JH>> * Originally by: Ed Connell (1:379/1.6), 21 Jan 05 20:08.
 JH>> 
 JH>> I don't know if you still have Ed in your filter, but if do you 
 JH>> missed thi one and he makes some good points you need to consider.  
 JH>> If you do, you'll that he has said much the same as I did.  You're 
 JH>> wrong about Ed, and that' something else you need to ponder.
 JH>> 
 JH>> 
 JH>> 21 Jan 05 20:08, Ed Connell wrote to Darryl Perry:
 JH>> 
 JH>>  EC> Hey, Darryl.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP>> Earning respect goes both ways, and it's a continuous 
 JH>>  DP>> process.  It's just as easy to lose it as it is to win it.  
 JH>>  DP>> I'm sure you all have each others' respect because I watch 
 JH>>  DP>> you (as a collective) kid and joke with each other and make 
 JH>>  DP>> cheap shots at everybody else.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  EC> You all?  Perot got into trouble for saying "you people" to a 
 JH>>  EC> Black convention.  The issue is stereotyping.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP>>  That causes me to have little or no respect for those of 
 JH>>  DP>> you who do it.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  EC> Say something truly significant and if it is true, folks 
 JH>>  EC> won't make fun of you.  Continue to call people names and disparage 
 JH>>  EC> them with nothing to back it up and you will suffer.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP>> But, I'm fully aware that you (as a collective) could care 
 JH>>  DP>> less whether or not you have my respect.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  EC> The expression is, "couldn't care less".  The idea is that we 
 JH>>  EC> care so little, there is no down side.  Of course we care a great 
 JH>>  EC> deal about important stuff.


I assume this is the grammar lesson you refer to.  You made a very common error
that many, many people make without realizing, and which completely changes the
meaning of what you intended to convey.  If nobody says anything, you continue
to make the same error, and that only compounds the misunderstanding.  Besides,
we all need to take some constructive criticism from time to time.  It keeps us
humble.

 JH>> 
 JH>>  DP>> Just be also aware that I don't realy don't care whether you 
 JH>>  DP>> respect me or not.
 JH>> 
 JH>>  EC> We can tell from what you write. <g>
 JH>> 
 JH>>  EC> So what are your goals here?  Do you want to convince, learn, 
 JH>>  EC> or something else?  From what I've seen so far, I'd guess 
 JH>>  EC> "something else".
 JH>> 
 JH>> John 



John 

America:  First, Last, and Always!
Go to www.madgorilla.us for all your Domain Name Services at the lowest rates.

--- Msged/386 TE 05
 * Origin: We are the Watchmen of our own Liberty! (1:379/1.99)