Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Umbran" data-source="post: 9307475" data-attributes="member: 177">So, I am sliding now away from you and what you wrote, and&nbsp; into a discussion of writing and communication, in general.&nbsp; What you wrote is merely the immediate example.&nbsp; You may not be interested in that, and you are free to ignore what follows.&quot;I am sorry you took it that way,&quot; is like, &quot;I'm sorry you took offense at what I said.&quot;&nbsp; It places responsibility for the result on the audience, and acknowledging none on the writer's part.&nbsp;&nbsp; A writing teacher of mine once had a precept that seems appropriate here:&nbsp; There are three versions of every text: 1) what the author intended to get across, 2) what actually ended up on the page, and 3) what the audience gets from that text.Thus....Are you sure that the text you wrote actually includes the information to get that?&nbsp; If not, the responsibility for the misunderstanding isn't much on the audience.This is similar in form (though not in content) to the issue we see when someone states a personal preference, but doesn't explicitly note that in the text.&quot;Ford trucks do not work,&quot; is a statement on the objective mechanical operation of Ford trucks, while, &quot;Ford trucks do not work for me,&quot; is a statement of preference.&nbsp; The lack of specification changes the logical content of the statement, and the audience should not be expected to know the author means the latter, when only the former is presented.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Umbran, post: 9307475, member: 177"] So, I am sliding now away from you and what you wrote, and into a discussion of writing and communication, in general. What you wrote is merely the immediate example. You may not be interested in that, and you are free to ignore what follows. "I am sorry you took it that way," is like, "I'm sorry you took offense at what I said." It places responsibility for the result on the audience, and acknowledging none on the writer's part. A writing teacher of mine once had a precept that seems appropriate here: There are three versions of every text: 1) what the author intended to get across, 2) what actually ended up on the page, and 3) what the audience gets from that text. Thus.... Are you sure that the text you wrote actually includes the information to get that? If not, the responsibility for the misunderstanding isn't much on the audience. This is similar in form (though not in content) to the issue we see when someone states a personal preference, but doesn't explicitly note that in the text. "Ford trucks do not work," is a statement on the objective mechanical operation of Ford trucks, while, "Ford trucks do not work [I]for me[/I]," is a statement of preference. The lack of specification changes the logical content of the statement, and the audience should not be expected to know the author means the latter, when only the former is presented. [/QUOTE]

Verification