Theos-Talk Archives (November 2001 Message tt00046)

|-----Original Message-----
|From: Eldon B Tucker [mailto:eldon@theosophy.com] 
|Sent: Saturday, 3 November 2001 6:20 AM
|To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
|Subject: RE: Theos-World seeing how writing affects others
|
|
|At 04:57 AM 11/3/01 +1030, you wrote:
|
|>|When you write something, do you look and see
|>|how it affects the people reading it?
|>
|>I get very little response so.....
|
|That's one form of reaction. I get it too to
|a number of my posts. It's hard to tell what's
|been subject to <DELETE>, what was skimmed
|over and ignored, and what was found interesting
|but not considered worth commenting to.
|
| >>If you do, do you change your writing approach
| >>to become a more effective writer when it
| >>backfires and you have the wrong result?
|
|>Most of the time I just try to get Bart mad. ;)
|
|That seems to work at times. But here's where
|it's good to gauge the effect a posting has on
|other people. If your intent is only humor,
|provoking a laugh, groan, or yuck, then it's
|possible to be more clear about it when writing
|something. Chuck the Neo-Barbarian is expert in
|this style of writing, and either brings a
|bit of comic relief to overly-serious topics,
|or is on the don't-read list of people's email
|programs.
|
|On the other hand, a serious conversation intended
|to get someone to consider an idea with an open
|mind -- that is done differently. When people feel
|offended or their defenses go up, they'll not be
|receptive to thinking differently.
|
|>I just want them talking full stop. Debate is good.
|
|Interesting things get people talking. So do
|controversial things. But it's not necessary
|to make people angry to motivate the discussions.
|
|>|As a skilled writer, you'd be able to pick
|>|your approach, draw together the words, and
|>|clearly fashion the thoughts and feelings
|>|that you'd share. With less skill, the writing
|>|stumbles, and unintended results ensue.
|>|
|>|-- Eldon
|>
|>So I'm obvioulsy not a skilled writer then. Does that mean I'm not 
|>allowed to say anything?
|
|We're all practicing, somewhat short of the
|ideal. Are we learning and growing? Do we see
|if what we said is understood, and if not,
|try different ways of expressing ourselves?
|That's what's important. Not that we are
|already perfect in what we say.
|
|>If unintended results occur then it's from misinterpreation and 
|>assumption. People should ask questions to elaborate.
|
|It's true that communication is a two-way
|street. Both sides are responsible for it
|to work. Not only do we try to be clearer
|in what we say, we also try to be better
|listeners, asking questions to clarify things
|when we're uncertain.
|
|-- Eldon
|


Also I have toadmit that as a resource tool making a false statement on
the net can't be beaten. Everyone jumps out of their skin to correct you
- saving hourse of research. Especially useful on the public newsgroups.
Say I wanted to know when HPB published something - I'd just say ' In
1882 when HPB published XXX' . Next minute I'd have 5 people only to
eager to point out my mistake. ;)

Cheers big ears

Nos