Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : SI Grammar and Spelling Lab -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wizzer who wrote (1317)	5/25/1998 9:06:00 AM
From: Achilles	Respond to of 4711

You raise some good points, Wisam, about internet laziness and the need to reread posts to make sure that the correct meaning is understood. In the latter case, however, guilt rests with the writer, not the reader. A well written post will only have to be read once. To choose one of my favorites, Jbe's posts are models of clarity (see 1308 for example). Even a person of moderate intelligence will understand it after one read. And even people of superior intelligence (like those on this thread <bg>) will have to read poorly written posts again and again, often to finally despair finding meaning or intelligence therein.

To: Wizzer who wrote (1317)	5/25/1998 11:35:00 AM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 4711

Wisam - re: "internet laziness" and "intellectual empathy" I have a couple of comments on your post: 1) You seem like a thoroughly nice person, Wisam! (Pardon the gushiness, generally a no-no here.) 2) I tend to agree (as you appear to) with penni's response to my original post on this subject: Most people barely listen to what's being said because they are so busy planning their response. At the same time, I also agree with Claude -- up to a certain point -- that "guilt rests with the writer." (Note that I put the period inside the final quotation mark that time!) Many posts are so badly written that it is impossible to figure out what the writer is trying to say. That's why I started this thread in the first place. At the same time, I unfortunately cannot agree that "a well-written post will only have to be read once." Claude, if you are reading this, let me thank you, as effusively as I can, for calling my posts a "model of clarity." But I wouldn't have raised this question (of "internet laziness", to use Wisam's felicitous expression) at all if my own posts had not been misread (or only partly read) on a number of occasions. I am not talking about exchanges that degenerate into a brawl. (I'm not a brawler.) I am talking about fully civilized, polite, non-confrontational exchanges, where the reader is in too much of a hurry, or too preoccupied with the message he wants to deliver, to grasp the point I am trying to make. So he responds -- but not to the point. If I try to raise it again, I get the same result. In such cases, I usually just "give it a rest." Why bulldog it to death? I am sure my experience is not unique. jbe