Thoughts on Rudeness

I think you would be wise to start over and find a better example.

ajqtrz wrote: Gragnog, I'm glad you skipped it.  But if you did, why comment at all?  Having admitted to not reading it, what possible relevant response could you have supplied? AJ

Ok, the title is "Thoughts on Rudeness". I think you are just plain rude for putting such a long and drawn out post expecting us to bother to read it. Next time skip the rudeness and put a shorter more effective post in.

Brandmeister,

As you well know many subjects are so multi-faceted that a good discussion of them may take a bit of time and space.  That you grow weary of such lengthy posts may be more a sign of our current move into the cyber world.  Scientist have noted that the younger generations (the "twenty-somethings and below) have a marked and measurable tendency to multi-task and less an ability to stick to a task with full concentration for as long.  Since critical thinking is a task that, if done well, needs full concentration, it may be that many of this generation find the posts too long because they are not used to speaking in anything longer than 140 characters, or receiving information in larger and more complex blocks like paragraphs and even pages.  There is, as described in a number of places, a shortening of communication acts, both in the number of words, the spelling, and the duration of the exchange, and thus, it is claimed, a shortening in the ability to concentrate on a single task which is what is needed for true creativity and critical thought.  At least the reports I heard and read on the subject this last week have consistently stated this.

So if you are under thirty I wouldn't be surprised at your reluctance to encounter long and complex posts.  Shorter examples may exist but they may also not be as complex as might be needed.  I might suggest though, since you did suggest it, that if you could come up with something that would be a nice contribution.

AJ

Brandmeister wrote: I am 40. As evidenced by many of my posts on this forum, I have no reluctance to produce or peruse long and complex articles. However, as a technical professional, I value the concise expression of ideas. It is the result of placing a high value on the time of others. It is also a recognition of the limitations of a global environment where English is often a second language. In my experience, when people write rambling Internet posts, their intention is usually a monologue and not a dialogue. It is a poor communicator indeed who fails to efficiently reach a clear point with his audience, and then blames them for poor listening skills.

The characterization of some posts as "rambling" is interesting as you aren't really arguing with the length of the post, but the lack of editing.  To that I would ask, what part of my post would you have edited out or made more concise? 

In addition, it is quite possible that when people write "rambling Internet posts" it may be that they are doing some "thinking out loud" rather than intending to create a monologue, as you seem to think.  Should dialog only include fully edited and polished prose or is it possible to actually think as one writes? 

One of the hallmarks of our current rhetorical stance in the west is the "casualness" of our communications in comparison to those of the last few centuries.  Our language is more free flowing and our forms of grammar (or lack thereof) more varied.  I would suggest that they conciseness of your technical writing is a proper response to what you are supposed to write and it's a very good skill to possess (I've authored over 20 technical articles myself and understand the necessity of clarity, brevity and conciseness).  But this is a forum and less formal and I do think, perhaps, a little more flexible as far as length and style are concerned.

Thus, while I concur that editing is always a good thing, too much editing removes the personality from the writing, something a technical paper usually strives to do, but which in a forum like this, may only make what is more colorful, more grey and uninteresting/unreadable.

Finally, suggesting something does not make it so.  If I suggest that you have failed in some aspect of correspondence I am leaving it to the reader to determine it for themselves.  Thus, you suggest (by implication) my posts are "rambling."  I leave it to the reader to determine the degree of rambling I do, and if it characterizes what you say it characterizes.  But of course, to do that they would have to read the posts, wouldn't they?

Still, I thank you for your thoughts.  Do remember though, that whatever you think somebody is intending to do, unless they have actually stated that the goal is what they intended, there might be other reasons of which you lack awareness.  Motives are such difficult things to ascertain as they are often mixed and sometimes hidden as well.

AJ

Stonerman wrote: ajqtrz wrote: So if you are under thirty I wouldn't be surprised at your reluctance to encounter long and complex posts.  Shorter examples may exist but they may also not be as complex as might be needed.  I might suggest though, since you did suggest it, that if you could come up with something that would be a nice contribution. AJ so is this your version of graciousness? instead of re-working your first post or even just making a quick summary (which would remedy everyones problem here) you'd rather make convoluted insults to go with these convoluted posts? if you are actually serious about using this topic for a "civil" discussion how about not making it a such a chore just to understand what you want to talk about.

I apologize if you felt insulted by the references to current research on discussion and the Internet.  I do see how you might have been offended, and perhaps it was unwise of me to quote the research.  If I had it to do over I'd have left that out.  Sorry.

AJ