|
 |
clipka wrote:
> 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...
It's not a popularity contest, it's reasoning, again you missed the
point, and yes, you're wrong, because I wrote what the requirements were
and for the random kind of posts on ot.pr.org.
> 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.
You again repeat yourself for the 4th time, I explained this already, I
get your point, you don't get mines and digress to your subjects.
> 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.
I never asked to discard emotional information, you assumed that, and
assuming is generally mistaking, there your error. You didn't analyzed
yous and just having a general notion of them. Emotional info. makes you
smarter since they're the result of subconscious reasoning or called
"gut" because sometimes creates a little bit and anxiety and produce a
little of excess gastric juice and creating gases and bit of annoyance
on the intestine that will be felt in the 'gut', but that's a chemical
response of a similar anxiety-provoking situation from the past, but
necessarily equal, therefore the need to analyze it, women tend to do
this way better and faster than men, evolutionary trait, I learned this
about them long ago and confirmed over the years, and that makes them
more understanding, so you were not only wrong but very wrong to assume
this of me.
> 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.)
And I took it that way, except for 1 post which was digressed from the
points and you tend to explain too long.
> What others then did was point out that, yes, they feel the same,
> furthering the point that you should do things differently.
somewhat, yes.
> 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).
No, wrong assessment, that's what people here thinks I'm doing, I'm
calling BS where I see it and addressing with reason when I see it too,
that you can see this and pinpoint my mistake and just write generally:
you try to appear reasonable, you rant, etc, it's just lack of analysis,
I'm being reasonable and try to write short, but it's not always possible.
> 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.
When I see unreasonable attitudes, I won't call to reason, not here,
because here you should be reasonable to communicate.
> So until you think over and adapt your comms style, you're /obviously/
> still missing my point.
Or maybe I'm not the problem.
> 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.)
This is the second time you contradict yourself, yes you're implying I
must, it's a form of persuasive emotional coercion. I try to improve but
I don't care if the World calls my reasoning BS, truth and the truth of
my reasoning will say, I'm not if I'm in the truth of things.
> 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.
I'm getting tired to be corrected that has as many and maybe more cooms
issues than me, and reasoning and simple explanation or generally all
you need to comms efficiently.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
com> wrote: