Hello, all!
Dave writes:
> 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?
I say unto thee:
If one is attempting to communicate a truth, rigidity in message is not only
necessary, but desirable.
If you believe that it is true, for instance, that Jesus is the only way to
salvation, it would be foolish not to cling to that dogma. Further, it would
be a disservice to your audience to go "off message" if you care about them.
While you are free to change your method of delivery, your message is
absolute. This, of course, applies to any communication which imparts an
inarguable premise. ("There is a - or no - God" ... "The sky is falling" ...
"The fox is in the henhouse")
In matters of truth, the recipient is always free to reject the message and
live with the consequences, but the messenger is obligated to stay "on
message" - or to shut up.
Regards,
drose
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