On Mon, Apr 6, 2009 at 12:25 PM, Palit, Nilanjan <[email protected]> wrote: >> From: Ben Tilly [mailto:[email protected]] >> Sent: Monday, April 06, 2009 11:59 AM > >> It appears that you didn't read what I wrote, then launched a rant >> that would be better aimed at someone else.I say this because I had >> linked to a chapter on how to effectively communicate with PPT, then >> complained about the way that it is used. >> >> This should tell you that I'm blaming the technique, not the tool. > > Your statement "Powerpoint ... encourages > oversimplification" expressly blames the tool for > the problem, even though your intent may have been > otherwise (seems like another poster interpreted your > comment the same way). Since it seems like we're both > on the same page about communicating ideas, we can move > on.
Not to beat a dead horse, but what I actually wrote was: Personally I don't like the way that Powerpoint is used because it encourages oversimplification. Which means that the thing that I do not like is, "the WAY that Popwerpoint IS USED." So it really IS a complaint about the technique, not the tool. > BTW, I do take issue with describing my response as a > "rant", which seems to be often misused on the web: > Rant Meaning and Definition > 1. (n.) High-sounding language, without importance or > dignity of thought; boisterous, empty declamation; > bombast; as, the rant of fanatics. > 2. (v. i.) To rave in violent, high-sounding, or > extravagant language, without dignity of thought; > to be noisy, boisterous, and bombastic in talk or > declamation; as, a ranting preacher. > > I would hardly qualify my last response as "without > importance or dignity of thought; boisterous, empty > declamation". A lot of thought went into to > specifically addressing your comments. I did read your > linked article & found it in conflict with your > statement. A response does not qualify as a "rant" just > because it is long and its intended target doesn't like > its message. But, then again, everyone is entitled to > their own opinion :-) You put a lot of thought into specifically addressing my comments and never noticed that I hadn't said what you thought I said? You noticed the conflict between what I linked to and what you thought I said, and *still* didn't read it carefully enough to correctly parse what I said? Then when I pointed out that I'd said something different than you thought, you went back, quoted me very poorly and STILL didn't notice that I had, in fact, said something quite different than you thought? I've made mistakes of this kind in the past. And every last time was a case where someone said something that so outraged me that I felt I had to respond, then proceeded to do so at length. To quote your definition, I was responding without "importance or dignity of thought". In other words I was ranting, and got so caught up in my rant that I didn't notice that I was outraged at a misunderstanding, and not about something real. Since we're largely in agreement on the actual content, I'll not reply to the rest of what you said. Ben _______________________________________________ Boston-pm mailing list [email protected] http://mail.pm.org/mailman/listinfo/boston-pm
