To get back to the main point, which is how one should write letters (or emails) for the best effect, there is a proverb about catching more flies with honey than with vinegar.
Above all, in addressing those you would influence, use tact and diplomacy. If you don't, you cannot expect the reader to go further than your first paragraph. Intellectual seduction is they key that will open the door to a willingness to listen to reason. (New proverb. Feel free to use it.) To those who would say, "What's in it for me?", you must provide an answer. With those who couldn't care less, it's pointless to argue. Your energy is best saved for those who can be influenced, because they are willing to weigh the benefits. 'Nuff said. I don't want to pontificate (at least not excessively). Bill Potts, CMS Roseville, CA http://metric1.org [SI Navigator] >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]On >Behalf Of Stephen Davis >Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 12:20 >To: U.S. Metric Association >Subject: [USMA:24422] RE: the U.S., etc. > > >Carl Sorenson wrote: > >>>We are the ones who invented airplanes, TV's......<< > >Whooaahh!!! Just a cotton', pickin' minute there, Carl!! > >YOU are the ones who invented TV's????? > >I think a certain Scottish gentlemen, were he alive today, might >have something to say about that, namely, one John Logie Baird!! > >And, as you are clearly taking exception to Mike Joy's tone about >the US, what about your comments about the US having lower taxes >than the welfare states of Europe?? > >Though this is undoubtedly true, couldn't critics point to the >record deficits the US economy is experiencing at the moment?? >Something you conveniently forgot to mention?? > >The USA is a great country, but I do wish a certain number of its >residents could learn to take criticism without immediately going >on the defensive, especially as some seem only too willing to dish >it out to others!! > >Regards, > >Steve. >[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > >----- Original Message ----- >From: "Carl Sorenson" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >To: "U.S. Metric Association" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 7:06 PM >Subject: [USMA:24420] RE: the U.S., etc. > > >> Mike Joy said: >> I suppose I've been guilty of writing some apparently anti-US >statements in >> some of my letters to papers and postings here, but they are >only designed >> to try and jerk free this crazy John Wayne mentality that is >hurting the US >> so much. >> >> Yes, I think I understand. I haven't had too much of a problem with what >> you have written. However, I'm not sure that "outsiders" are >likely to be >> swayed by some of your comments. For example, in your letter to >the Wausau >> Daily Herald you said: >> "You're supposed to be the 'greatest' nation on Earth aren't >you, so where's >> the proof? " >> >> To most people, who don't see metrication as their all-consuming life >> ambition, this statement wouldn't make a whole lot of sense. They would >> say, "Well, we are the sole surviving superpower. Immigrants >are breaking >> down the doors to get in. We are the ones who invented airplanes, TV's, >> microwaves, transistors, integrated circuits, PC's, and nuclear bombs and >> reactors. We have little corruption, an open press, and a >healthy, modern >> economy with honest financial markets, a stable currency, low >unemployment >> and inflation, and lower taxes than the welfare states of >Europe. I'd say >> we're doing pretty darn well." >> >> In other words, using metrication as a measure of a country's >'greatness' is >> leaving out a lot of other things, most of which have a lot more >to do with >> a people's quality of life. Now, I'm sure you already >understand all this, >> but if you make statements like the one above, people will call >you on it. >> Even your statement, which isn't very offensive, will make people try to >> defend their country rather than think about your position. >They won't be >> convinced, and persuasion is the whole point of writing these letters, I >> think. >> >> It looks to me like the basic reasoning in your statement is "America >> doesn't use metric so they aren't as good as they think they >are." I think >> my style of reasoning would be more along the lines of "I have >an idea for a >> way to make America better. I think it will work, too. Let's see how we >> can get this to happen." Do you see the difference? >> >> If your goal is to make Americans be more humble and less snooty, that is >> certainly worthwhile, but I'm not sure that your sentence is >worded in a way >> that would accomplish that. "Where's the proof?" is almost a personal >> challenge, like "I dare you to prove that your country is so >great." They >> will take you up on that challenge, at least mentally. To get a >person to >> think like you do, you want show that you are on the same side >or use humor >> or something. For example, even something like, "Get with the >program!" is >> basically saying, "Hey, Americans, we have a consensus here. >Come join our >> club." In my mind, it is inclusive, not confrontational. >> >> Well, those are my thoughts. I wouldn't say that the things you have >> written are offensive (not like some people's comments), but >they aren't the >> way I would say things. >> >> Carl >> >> >> >
