From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1OP7xw-0000pR-Hv for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:48:42 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 67673E0A61; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:48:36 +0000 (UTC) Received: from smtp.gentoo.org (smtp.gentoo.org [140.211.166.183]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id B79EFE0A4A for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:48:11 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 631381B408C for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:48:11 +0000 (UTC) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at gentoo.org X-Spam-Score: -1.335 X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.335 required=5.5 tests=[AWL=-1.150, BAYES_40=-0.185] Received: from smtp.gentoo.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (smtp.gentoo.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id cUpZ3s6Ay7l3 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:48:04 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lo.gmane.org (lo.gmane.org [80.91.229.12]) by smtp.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 464341B404D for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:48:01 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lo.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1OP7xG-0006em-1K for gentoo-dev@gentoo.org; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:47:58 +0200 Received: from ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net ([68.231.22.224]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:47:58 +0200 Received: from 1i5t5.duncan by ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:47:58 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org connect(): No such file or directory From: Duncan <1i5t5.duncan@cox.net> Subject: [gentoo-dev] Re: Tone in Gentoo Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 05:47:51 +0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <1276717242.2326.0@NeddySeagoon> <4C195135.1050702@gentoo.org> Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-dev@lists.gentoo.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: ip68-231-22-224.ph.ph.cox.net User-Agent: Pan/0.133 (House of Butterflies; GIT a971f44 branch-testing) Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: cb62ee96-3f93-40ff-88ff-40a53f4ce01f X-Archives-Hash: 335aebb410a27e2e9b12a58da6361728 Sebastian Pipping posted on Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:33:25 +0200 as excerpted: > On 06/16/10 21:40, Roy Bamford wrote: >> As a native English speaker (from England) I view Jers reply as terse >> and to the point, completely lacking in tone. >=20 > interesting. Looking at the sentence >=20 > "When did you point this out to devrel?" >=20 > I would like to say that while it's not impolite per se it's implicitly > saying "You _have to_ point this out to dev rel" in my ears. [...] > In contrast asking >=20 > "Have you pointed this out to DevRel? What was their reaction?" >=20 > does not seem to have this mis-hearing problem, at least not to me. Thanks for the concrete example, and yes, I agree. I've become aware of two issues I personally have, in this regard. 1) I (normally) instinctively interpret statements in the positive,=20 subconsciously rewriting statements of the first form into the second as = I=20 read them, because I assume people have the best intentions until it is=20 demonstrated otherwise. Yet this process is not without cost in=20 subconscious processing time and thus in stress, and while I couldn't=20 point out why without deliberately deconstructing the post as you did, I'= m=20 left with a vague unease about the post, which only becomes apparent when= =20 pointed out, as here, or over time, as other posts accumulate and I=20 evaluate the poster as less friendly than I might, still without=20 consciously understanding why. You explain my unease. If I assume others are like me, perhaps I've=20 pointed out why they too, wouldn't have pointed to this post as=20 unfriendly, yet agree with your point now that you have. 2) I often overcompensate in an attempt to make my point clear, with=20 "verbiage out the yin-yang", but in reality, often obscuring it due to=20 simple "verbiage overgrowth". (Point 1 shrunk by more than half after=20 four rewrites.) This exasperates some to the point of killfiling, tho=20 I've enough "thanks for the explanation" replies from others over the=20 years to know "it's what works" for others. Some seem to have an instinctive fear of verbiage, contracting=20 communications to their most precise possible while retaining literal=20 meaning, without understanding the effect this has on implied meaning. =20 Thus, example #2 gets contracted into #1, and the more sensitive read int= o=20 it an offense when none was intended. > I remember a guy of the German Unix User Group (GUUG) saying something > like >=20 > "Communication is always oriented at the receiver". Wise man. > Applying that to tone and avoiding mis-interpretation the sender has th= e > power (and arguably the responsiblity) to sounds as friendly as needed > to be sure it will not be understood as unfriendly. In a way there's > always a way to be friendlier - _without_ faking anything. But that takes three times the effort and twice the words. Example #2=20 above is, after all, almost twice the size of #1. --=20 Duncan - List replies preferred. No HTML msgs. "Every nonfree program has a lord, a master -- and if you use the program, he is your master." Richard Stallman