Lukasha said:
But I'm not speaking with people from 100 years ago or 100 years from now. I'm speaking to people that live right now. If communication doesn't follow commonly accepted rules at that time, then communication doesn't happen. I'm not being comforted by self-imposed rules. I'm just trying to communicate well with the people around me. Railing against the system is appropriate sometimes, but if it makes it so that no one understands you, what good is rebellion?
Jeff
Well obviously not, and I never suggested you were. My point was that how do you think the form of English used in the past changed to become todays language and how will todays English evolve into that spoken in the next century? They didnt adopt these rules in 1900 and force change, language changed because people using it all use it slightly differently and others pick up nuances from many different sources.
I dont think I, or the OP are railing against the system we just choose to use our language slightly differently to how you do.
We to are just trying to communicate to those around us, and I dont think anybody, yourself included reasonably failed to understand or misinterpreted what the OP was asking. If Im right in that then the OP use of English did exactly what was intended, it communicated his question.
The style of written communication, which I think is what youve got issues with, concerns not just the facts being relayed but also has an inference of tone or the attitude of the writer. Your original post communicates the information, that you feel good communication a necessary skill, and also a very condescending tone. I think itd fair to say its more your tone thats got peoples backs up not the information.
To be fair this does show that you have good communication skills, but perhaps a character that many seem not to like.
Your first post also implied that the OP could neither type nor speak well. I touched in my posts on why I disagree with you on the former and youll have to agree that neither of us should comment on the latter as we simply dont have any evidence.
Of course youll now be able to reply that that comment was meant generally and not aimed at the OP in anyway. To which I point at that if the tone of your comment had been less vitriolic I may have believed you, but it wasnt so I dont, and thats because of how you communicated.