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 <> wrote:

> On Tue, Aug 16, 2016 at 2:38 PM, Benedict Elliott Smith
> <> 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

Reply via email to