Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7310993" data-attributes="member: 6919838">However, as you say, tone is not always easy to convey.In fact, i think i am not on controversial ground here when i say it is often recommended to START with where you agree in discussions with someone, to lay a foundation of interest and get things off positive footing, before you go into the disagreements because going directly into disagreement can send a different tone etc...by cutting out the positives, by choosing to dismiss the positive front loaded approach, etc... you seem to be skewing the pooch in a sense by choosing as not relevant the parts of the post where i did put effort into paving the positive ground before we got into the disagreement over the lack of linkage between the claim and the one cited example - which later on the poster admitted was on a different topic altogether.I mean if somebody says i dont like a becausebcd (Where D is the only actual example of style of play&nbsp; referenced for differences)and then later admits d was on some other subject altogether Is it really that offensive or dismissive to go into how d doesn't follow, how d seems to not be the same or to even ask if they got two different things confused into the one post?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7310993, member: 6919838"] However, as you say, tone is not always easy to convey. In fact, i think i am not on controversial ground here when i say it is often recommended to START with where you agree in discussions with someone, to lay a foundation of interest and get things off positive footing, before you go into the disagreements because going directly into disagreement can send a different tone etc... by cutting out the positives, by choosing to dismiss the positive front loaded approach, etc... you seem to be skewing the pooch in a sense by choosing as not relevant the parts of the post where i did put effort into paving the positive ground before we got into the disagreement over the lack of linkage between the claim and the one cited example - which later on the poster admitted was on a different topic altogether. I mean if somebody says i dont like a because b c d (Where D is the only actual example of style of play referenced for differences) and then later admits d was on some other subject altogether Is it really that offensive or dismissive to go into how d doesn't follow, how d seems to not be the same or to even ask if they got two different things confused into the one post? [/QUOTE]

Verification