can anyone tell me this

[TonySorrento]

Quote:
um...he basically re-said what I said...

OK ... I will condescend and give you credit as well ...

 

[chickened]

Not so fast... my Paypal is...

Such a great education I'm getting for free! LOL!

 

[AquaEyes]

To give another example, the adjective "ambitious" today has a positive connotation, but in Roman society, it was considered insulting. Calling someone at that time "ambitious" meant that you think he is putting his own desires for advancement ahead of his responsibilities as a Roman. In either case, the word means the same -- a desire to improve one's station -- but in the cultural context, that desire has changed from a bad thing to a good thing. While it's interesting to know how words have changed, if you are seeking to communicate with someone else, you'd stand less of a chance of having your message misinterpreted if you follow current connotations and usage rather than those from way back when. True, you'd be technically correct either way, but you might not get the chance to explain it to someone who doesn't realize that.

 

[chickened]

Censoring language for the benefit of other's misunderstandings could be eased by mandatory dictionary reading by employers as part of workplace etiquette.

 

[AquaEyes]

Censoring language for the benefit of other's misunderstandings could be eased by mandatory dictionary reading by employers as part of workplace etiquette.

Censoring language? Mandatory dictionary reading? Effective communication is an interplay between the communicator and the receiver. If the communicator refuses to adjust his communication so as to be sure his message is properly interpreted without ambiguity, then he is an ineffective communicator -- unless ambiguity is the intended goal. And then I wonder if "being intentionally ambiguous" is really just a nicer way of saying a person is purposely misleading. And as to "mandatory dictionary reading" -- if I was to answer a simple question with lots of area-specific jargon that was not understood by the person asking the question, does that mean that it's the asker's fault for not understanding me, rather than my fault for not communicating effectively?

 

[chickened]

It depends whether you are the pupil or the master. If you think you are equal to your teacher than the answer would be yes.

Censoring language? Mandatory dictionary reading? Effective communication is an interplay between the communicator and the receiver. If the communicator refuses to adjust his communication so as to be sure his message is properly interpreted without ambiguity, then he is an ineffective communicator -- unless ambiguity is the intended goal. And then I wonder if "being intentionally ambiguous" is really just a nicer way of saying a person is purposely misleading. And as to "mandatory dictionary reading" -- if I was to answer a simple question with lots of area-specific jargon that was not understood by the person asking the question, does that mean that it's the asker's fault for not understanding me, rather than my fault for not communicating effectively?

 

[Henny peeny]

my I din't think this would set off so much a... thnaks for all said trule learning experience


Rhayden