| William M. Klein 2007-09-16, 9:55 pm |
| "Robert" <no@e.mail> wrote in message
news:qrjre3hbc9ju481ku2fdlpplrni1vcebd8@
4ax.com...
> On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 00:31:31 GMT, "William M. Klein"
> <wmklein@nospam.netcom.com> wrote:
<snip>
> I read somewhere that simple declarative sentences are most forceful and
> convincing.
> Qualifiers make the reader use recursion, forward or backward, and make the
> writer look
> hesitant.
I can't (and won't try to) speak for ALL (or even most) CLC readers (and
particularly "regulars"), but this (to me) is the root of my (and possibly
others) problems with many of your CLC posts.
To me (and I believe others) your (and most) posts would be read (better) for
content than for "tone"
1) Use (or even OVER-use) qualification.
- When you are expressing an opinion, be SPECIFIC that it is an opinion
- When you are speaking from your experiences, be specific that it is your
personal experience that something is true or common
- When you are stating that it is your impression that something is a UNIVERSAL
truth, say that
- When you are stating a "fact", be clear as to why you think it is a fact
2) When you are "adding" information because someone has responded to something
that you didn't "mean"
- Be clear that you are adding clarification
- If you are "changing" what you originally stated, make that clear
3) When you were wrong (or misunderstood) be "out front" that you made a mistake
or that you need to clarify what you originally stated
***
Obviously, as Pete would remind me/us, this is an UNMEDIATED group. However, in
one of your posts you indicated that you WANTED your notes to be read (and
considered) for their technical content and recommendations/options. I would
(personally) recommend that you change the "tone" of your posts to emphasis
opinion and generalizations as such and distinguish them from "simple
declarative sentences" that many of us (as I read
responses to your notes) read as "false statements of universal fact".
And I fully accept that my writing confirm your statement about qualification
"Qualifiers make the reader use recursion, forward or backward, ..." but I think
that they also make such statements more acceptable to some (possibly most) of
this group.
--
Bill Klein
wmklein <at> ix.netcom.com
|