Like many difficult problems, it is easier to point them out than to suggest improvements. Anyway, I wasn't proposing we change the mechanisms of communication, just excusing my simplification of (my view of) the problem to avoid ending up in a quagmire on that topic. This is a great example of email's inadequacies, as this innocuous (to me) little textual act resulted instead in *different* quagmire, while the first potential quagmire is still in play!
Email is a minefield, and textual interactions can be exhausting. So people tap out without fully expressing themselves, to retain their life and sanity. On 16 August 2016 at 20:49, Eric Evans <john.eric.ev...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith > <bened...@apache.org> wrote: > > I think all complex, nuanced and especially emotive topics are > challenging > > to discuss over textual media, due to things like the attention span of > > your readers, the difficulties in structuring your text, and especially > the > > hoops that have to be jumped through to minimise the potential for > > misinterpretation, as well as correcting the inevitable > misinterpretations > > that happen anyway. > > Fair enough, I suppose, but some of these things are also difficult > face to face. Most people who collaborate over the Internet with > people from different backgrounds in different timezones, etc, learn > to adjust accordingly. And, the asynchronicity of email is often a > feature in this regard, giving people the opportunity to more > carefully consider what they've read, and to be more deliberate in > their response. > > I guess what I should have asked is, if not email, then how? > > > -- > Eric Evans > john.eric.ev...@gmail.com >
