| |
Folks,
'Sbeen a little while since I've been in here, and I must say, honestly I can't
leave you kids alone for a second! :)
I've decided to reply to Anthony's post, not because my words are necessarily
directed at him, but because...well, I'm not sure, but there seems to be a
"Tony-roast" going on around here somewhere. More to the point, I believe it's
time we went over some basics in Internet communications.
Permit me to clarify something right off the bat. This post is not intended to
flame anyone or stir up anything. If you feel like you've got some (wait for it,
wait for it...) impressive retort lined up for me in reply, I would most humbly
request that you first go read the paper or build something or browse BrickShelf
and cool off. Then you'll know for certain or not if those words that are
supposed to knock us all on our backsides are really what you want to post.
So, first issue. I have had the priviledge of knowing Anthony Sava for nearly 5
years (in fact, 18 days short, Tony). I know the man well enough to state that
his words were not meant to tear anyone down. As for what he *did* intend...well
I like to do the out-moded, non-fashionable thing and give the man the benefit
of the doubt until I can hear his side of the story, in person, and make a more
reasonable judgement. Moving on.
Second issue. Internet communications. I'd like to thank a few level-headed
members of this forum for restricting their response solely to Tony's points and
not what they *think* he was implying. In my opinion, the courtesy level of
Internet communications outside the realm of busioness has been dropping both
precipitously and daily, and continues to do so. At the risk of seeming
patronizing, let us all remember the following about Internet communications:
1. We usually (Internet cameras notwithstanding) cannot see the other person's
face.
2. Statements made in chatrooms and message forums are devoid of inflections, tones, facial expressions, and body language, thus drastically reducing our chances of deriving the precise meaning of the messenger's words. The person making the post or reply has the tedious task of keeping their words simple, thus exposing their words to over-interpretation, or making it more complex, thus adding confusion to what they are trying to say. It's why people on the Internet tend to seemingly overqualify everything (like me :) )
That's pretty much it. Oh, one thing more: for the record, I have been involved
in setting up for conventions, mostly those involving role-playing and SF
fandom, but that was a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away (my God, has it
been that long??). All which has been said about the effort that goes into such
an event is dead-on absolutely correct from what I've read. But, for the sake of
argument, if I did not possess this experience, would that necessarily
disqualify me from making any observations about it whatsoever? Of course not.
One of the purposes of this type of forum is to promote communication, not
discourage it.
May your MOCs continue to arrive at the event safely,
- Pat
P.S. I don't know what happened with formatting (why #2 is so "strung-out"), but
it was not intentional. - P
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
102 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
