POV-Ray : Newsgroups : povray.off-topic : Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More Money To People Who Break The Law. He Answers Poorly. : Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More MoneyToPeopleWhoBreakTheLaw. He Answers Poorly. Server Time
28 Jul 2024 22:26:52 EDT (-0400)
  Re: Senator Asks Official Why He's Giving More MoneyToPeopleWhoBreakTheLaw. He Answers Poorly.  
From: clipka
Date: 25 Sep 2014 15:07:22
Message: <542467ea$1@news.povray.org>
Am 25.09.2014 11:33, schrieb Saul Luizaga:
> Discuss if the case arrived on my posts, but mostly inform and I would
> discuss on other people's post of course, so if you don't jump to
> conclusions as you did, you can easily see that this is a possibility.
>
> I'm not missing the target, that's what you think, the target is people
> that can read, write and think.

Well, you /are/ obviously missing the target audience if a number of 
people agree with my posting that started it all, that your way of 
addressing this newsgroup comes across as a bit off, or even that 
they've started to ignore your postings entirely, while there is none - 
zero, nada - who speaks up to say "I like the way you do it, please 
continue and don't let clipka's posting distract you".

Then of course, I might be mistaken in my presumption that your target 
audience is the readers if povray.off-topic, and that you just happen to 
be posting here erroneously...

> I understand your points, you're simply wrong or misguided as I have
> pointed out if any.

Then you're /not/ getting my point. Because my primary point is not how 
you are, what your intentions are, what you're trying to communicate - 
but just plainly how you come across, and why that doesn't further your 
goal of communicating some message.

> so I'm not going to waste time in reaching
> unreasonable people,

What you're probably failing to take into account is that even 
reasonable people have emotions, gut feelings et cetera, and as you 
pointed out in some other post yourself, the world would be an utterly 
cold, overly rational place if that wasn't the case. If you go straight 
against these emotional aspects of your audience, you're missing them - 
often entirely.

What I originally did was point out that, in my case, that's exactly 
what's happening with your posts - not to judge you, but to offer 
feedback so that you can adapt your style of communication to this 
problem. (I later also went on to rationally examine that non-rational 
aspect of mine that you brushed up against, only to find out that it 
warned me of a real issue, which again I communicated to you not for the 
sake of judgement.)

What others then did was point out that, yes, they feel the same, 
furthering the point that you should do things differently.

What you did then - and are doing still - was defend your posting style, 
appealing to our rational side to please just entirely ignore (and 
thereby betray) our emotional aspects (rather than even allow them to be 
expressed, which is a prerequisite for examining them rationally).

Everyone's emotional aspects form a part of that person, and usually 
they do have /some/ point and are therefore valid in themselves, and 
expecting people to entirely ignore them when trying to address them is 
just naive.


So until you think over and adapt your comms style, you're /obviously/ 
still missing my point.

I'm not saying you /must/ adapt your comms style, but then you have to 
live with the consequences - such as people telling you that you're 
losing them, or people starting to outright ignore you. (Maybe even 
people requesting you to be banned from the newsgroup if you really step 
onto people's emotional toes with force.)


I think I've said 'nuff now. I've been trying to make you aware of how 
you're busy losing people you claim to try to address, but I'm growing 
tired of you not having any of it. Apparently I'm missing my target 
audience, too - so as I don't have a clue how to otherwise change my 
comms style to be more efficient, I'll resort to a radical change: I'll 
simply stop posting on this issue.


Post a reply to this message

Copyright 2003-2023 Persistence of Vision Raytracer Pty. Ltd.