Make a quotable quote here.

[Brian37]

If you have anything to say just say it as simply as possible without loss precision. The best communication does not draw attention to itself.

Huh? I don't see how silence works all the time. I think "lead by example" is ok, but this quote above can and is often used as a mentality to silence dissent.

How many times have atheists faced "I don't care that you are an atheist I don't wear my theism on my sleave".

That misses the point that others do and without some communication to counter that we'd be as marginalized as we have been in the past.

The best communication isn't always or never, but context of situation and effectiveness of tactic.

[Whateverist]

When I said "the best communication does not draw attention to itself" what I meant is that it makes you think about what has been said, not how it was said. I'm not advocating silence, just effective communication. Excessive use of 25¢ words and grandiose phrasing just get in the way. If a thing can be said plainly without loss of precision, that works best IMO.

Huh? I don't see how silence works all the time. I think "lead by example" is ok, but this quote above can and is often used as a mentality to silence dissent.

Really? One example please. But I didn't have leading in mind, just communication. I guess you're really getting at persuasive rhetoric. I'm not really a big fan of verbal manipulation which shortcuts comprehension. That doesn't mean it can't be effective. Morally, I just prefer to deal with people in a respectful manner.

How many times have atheists faced "I don't care that you are an atheist I don't wear my theism on my sleave".

That misses the point that others do and without some communication to counter that we'd be as marginalized as we have been in the past.

The best communication isn't always or never, but context of situation and effectiveness of tactic.

This all assumes that the point of communication is to persuade by any means necessary.

[Brian37]

When I said "the best communication does not draw attention to itself" what I meant is that it makes you think about what has been said, not how it was said. I'm not advocating silence, just effective communication. Excessive use of 25¢ words and grandiose phrasing just get in the way. If a thing can be said plainly without loss of precision, that works best IMO.

Huh? I don't see how silence works all the time. I think "lead by example" is ok, but this quote above can and is often used as a mentality to silence dissent.

Really? One example please. But I didn't have leading in mind, just communication. I guess you're really getting at persuasive rhetoric. I'm not really a big fan of verbal manipulation which shortcuts comprehension. That doesn't mean it can't be effective. Morally, I just prefer to deal with people in a respectful manner.

How many times have atheists faced "I don't care that you are an atheist I don't wear my theism on my sleave".

That misses the point that others do and without some communication to counter that we'd be as marginalized as we have been in the past.

The best communication isn't always or never, but context of situation and effectiveness of tactic.

This all assumes that the point of communication is to persuade by any means necessary.

Ok, that is all well and good, so by going by your inititial quote you lent enough ambiguity for your communication to be missinterpreted. Which is far more important in text than in voice because you do not have tone and visuals to que off of.

But you do make a good point, unfortunately with politics and religion there really is no assumption, it is a fact that far too much in those relms the end justifies the means. If lying gets you a win or gains a convert that does the trick.

What people call the truth should not be assuming that communication is merely about perswading, but as long as you deal with humans they can lead others by the nose or be lead by the nose merely based upon what they want the truth to be, rather than face what is.

[Angrboda]

Q: What is the sound of one hand clapping?

A: Brian37

[Ryantology]

I want to break the rule and go with one my girlfriend told me once.

"You're everything I've ever wanted in a jackass."

[Brian37]

Q: What is the sound of one hand clapping?

A: Brian37

Good one. Which is why this thread has no views at all....oops yes it does and slightly more than one. You hurt me sooooo bad, now I am going to run to my mommy and tell her you picked on me, boo hoo.

[Whateverist]

When I said "the best communication does not draw attention to itself" what I meant is that it makes you think about what has been said, not how it was said. I'm not advocating silence, just effective communication. Excessive use of 25¢ words and grandiose phrasing just get in the way. If a thing can be said plainly without loss of precision, that works best IMO.



Really? One example please. But I didn't have leading in mind, just communication. I guess you're really getting at persuasive rhetoric. I'm not really a big fan of verbal manipulation which shortcuts comprehension. That doesn't mean it can't be effective. Morally, I just prefer to deal with people in a respectful manner.


This all assumes that the point of communication is to persuade by any means necessary.

Ok, that is all well and good, so by going by your inititial quote you lent enough ambiguity for your communication to be missinterpreted. Which is far more important in text than in voice because you do not have tone and visuals to que off of.

But you do make a good point, unfortunately with politics and religion there really is no assumption, it is a fact that far too much in those relms the end justifies the means. If lying gets you a win or gains a convert that does the trick.

What people call the truth should not be assuming that communication is merely about perswading, but as long as you deal with humans they can lead others by the nose or be lead by the nose merely based upon what they want the truth to be, rather than face what is.

I am so glad I don't teach writing but I sure wish someone would.

[Brian37]

Ok, that is all well and good, so by going by your inititial quote you lent enough ambiguity for your communication to be missinterpreted. Which is far more important in text than in voice because you do not have tone and visuals to que off of.

But you do make a good point, unfortunately with politics and religion there really is no assumption, it is a fact that far too much in those relms the end justifies the means. If lying gets you a win or gains a convert that does the trick.

What people call the truth should not be assuming that communication is merely about perswading, but as long as you deal with humans they can lead others by the nose or be lead by the nose merely based upon what they want the truth to be, rather than face what is.

I am so glad I don't teach writing but I sure wish someone would.

Yep because misspelling "gaweds dont exist" must mean they do. So lets be sure to focus on what is really important.

FYI I have knocked my computer back into the stone age so my spellcheck does not work. I never claimed to be perfect.

[Angrboda]

I never claimed to be perfect.

I think you're perfect.

[Whateverist]

I am so glad I don't teach writing but I sure wish someone would.

Yep because misspelling "gaweds dont exist" must mean they do. So lets be sure to focus on what is really important.

FYI I have knocked my computer back into the stone age so my spellcheck does not work. I never claimed to be perfect.

I'm not really a spelling nazi and am far from immune to making such mistakes, myself. Really my biggest complaint with your writing is the lack of focus. It kind of jumps around and goes off on tangents. You mentioned that my earlier post was ambiguously worded and that is a fault we can agree on. But, in the interest of giving sincere feedback, it is one that you frequently suffer from.

Does this seem like a useful discussion? Perhaps a critique of wordsmanship belongs in a thread devoted to ones own favorite quotes.