On Mon, Oct 26, 2015, JD Erskine iDance via Callers wrote: > > The most significant action/interaction has occurred, the person spoke up. > The useful thing is to acknowledge it -- receipt of the communication. > > (As an operator in many radio communication services I can easily attest to > the fact that an indication of receipt is different from one stating > agreement.)
That is true. > Were I writing in response (to that which I have not seen, or felt a > reaction to), I might state in my version of a kindly tone, "Thank you for > writing, and expressing your concern." . . . point of view, etc. as one > considers it useful. > > There is little need to explain anything. They wish to speak, be heard. > Indicating they've been heard is likely to be the most satisfying thing to > them. Maybe. I have certainly been in situations where I actually do want action, and a simple acknowledgment of receipt might make me angrier. That can be doubly or triply true when I suspect that the person has not understood my point, so I would at minimum encourage "mirroring": rephrasing what the person said in your own words and asking if that's what they meant. -- Hugs and backrubs -- I break Rule 6 http://rule6.info/ <*> <*> <*> Help a hearing-impaired person: http://rule6.info/hearing.html
