On Fri, 29 Sep 2000 00:29:22 -0500, you wrote:
<snip>
I agree with the stuff snipped above.
>
>"I think I get what you are saying... but (always the but) this is how
>we play chinese whispers..."
>
>Maybe here we have a real difference. I think that this is what good
>communication should be. By Chinese whispers I assume you mean the way a
>story is changed in the retelling. If so, it appears that you believe this
>to be a negative thing in communication, while I certainly do not. I believe
>that we should learn from each other, and that our views should merge after
>some time. If not, then communications must eventually be broken off.
>
This needs clarification I believe. Idea's and concepts evolve in much
the same way as species. Chinese whispers is different. In evolution a
conscious human decision is made. In Chinese whispers there is a
failure of communication. It's semi-random and even where it results
in a "better" concept the originator is not informed of it.
Communication has failed. It's kind of like just ticking boxes in a
multiple choice quiz. No knowledge was exchanged.
<>
>"OMMV"
>What does this mean exactly?
Net speak. "Others milage may vary" As in "I get 30 miles to the
gallon in my car, others milage may vary." It's used to signpost
things where one expects others to have differences in experience.
>
>
>"Where precision is necessary it
>should be used. The author chooses this. If the reader has questions
>about other parts then they can be answered with more precise language
>/ addison thought."
>
>It certainly seems to me that we are in agreeance that the author should
>write/speak in such a way as to be most clear to the audience without
>sacrificing meaning. However, I am less inclined to see a flaw with changes
>in meaning, should that be acceptable to the author. A rigid clinging to
>dogmatic views can bring communications to a rapid halt. However, both
>parties must be willing to commit to sharing win/win scenario. If not, the
>person who seeks to communicate can be rapidly bullied out of the
>conversation by the person who is merely preaching. What say ye unto this?
>-dave
>
>David Prince
>Systems Analyst
>www.NeoNome.com -The New, Free, Peer-to-Peer Internet!
>mailto:support@neonome.com
Sounds about right.
regards,
Ian
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archive - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
MD Queries - horse@wasted.demon.nl
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Sat Aug 17 2002 - 16:00:47 BST