If the parties involved agree to meet in person that's great. Not everyone will want/be able to. Getting people communicating to each other, even through an intermediary, should be to goal. How it is accomplished should be left to them.
Sure, we've had misunderstandings due to words not conveying mannerisms. We've also had polite conversation devolve into a shouting match. Neither form is perfect. In the end communication is key. Not talking, communicating. If both sides are talking but neither is -listening- it won't matter if they're using carrier pigeons or lawyers. "If what is said is not what is meant then what ought to be done remains undone" -Confucious regards, Andrew L On Sun, Apr 13, 2014 at 7:08 PM, Torrie Fischer <[email protected]>wrote: > On Sunday, April 13, 2014 15:25:27 Becca Salchak wrote: > > My issue with dealing with it over email is: > > -yes people tend to feel more free and open but we have had issues in the > > past with emails being misinterpreted. > > They happened in the past, and they'll happen again :) > > > - these are personal conflicts and i feel the best way to solve these > > problems is face to face with a peace keeper in the middle > > +1 > _______________________________________________ > Discuss mailing list > [email protected] > https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss >
_______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] https://synhak.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
