Dedman wrote a long, insightful, useful collection of excellent
guidelines for effective written communication, in the hope it may
diminish our strife. I believe many of you missed it because it got
buried in a thread several say they aren’t reading and was immediately
sidetracked by yet more off-putting and despicable personal attacks. It
thus deserves better attention under its own light, so I’m re-posting it
in a fresh thread with the same hopes Dedman had. I also add one more
critical and often violated rule at the end.

Dedman wrote --------------------------------
I agree ... that euphemisms often obfuscate the truth and wasn't
advocating their use.  I avoid them.  What I mean by "niceties" are the
verbal and nonverbal cues that [a person] gives] to the other person
that you respect
them although you disagree with their views.  I have made somewhat of a
study
of this because I am often described as an intimidating and abrasive person
even though that is not my intent... well, not always anyway ;-)

If I figure out the secret, I'll let you know.  In the meantime, the best I
can do is a couple of examples and rules of thumb I have come up with:

-  If you can add the phrase ", a.shole." to what you wrote without
changing
it's tone, you are probably not communicating respect for the other person.

-  Give the other man his point.  Rarely is the other person completely
wrong
about everything.  Acknowledging what you agree with before tearing into
them
establishes some common ground and communicates respect.

-  Don't bark back at dogs.  When you walk down the street and a dog
barks at
you, do you get down on your knees and bark back?  Some discussions are
just
not worth having.  They diminish you.

-  What would Robert E. Lee or George Washington do?  These two men for me
epitomize the ideal of being a gentleman without compromising strength of
principle or character.  I can't imagine either becoming involved in a
flame
war.

- Stop and think.  I love the story of how Lincoln wrote McClellan a letter
expressing disappointment in his performance and then set it aside until
the
morning.  When the morning came, he thought better of it and put it in a
drawer marked "unsent".  I frequently file posts in an "outbox" rather than
sending them immediately.  It's funny how your perspective can change after
you calm down :-)

- Written communications are trickier than face to face communications.
Saying something with a smile or using other body language establishes
rapport.  A "smiley" just doesn't have the same effect.  Therefore you must
be doubly careful what you write as opposed to what you say.

- Choose your words carefully.  In a wonderful book called "The Origin of
Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind", Julian Jaynes
introduced me to the concept of "paraphors" and "paraphrands".  Words have
both direct meanings and indirect associations.  Most often it is the
indirect, perhaps even subconscious associations that get you into trouble.

- Consider the audience.  Sometimes it's just satisfying and fun to tear
into
some jerk you find on Usenet. Probably has something to do with
testosterone.
 I know I have done more than my fair share.  However, at the same time
you
are dispatching your opponent whom you may not respect, you are making an
impression on the other members of the group whom you may respect and
want to
respect you. The two objectives may be incompatible.

-  When your are wrong, admit it.  When you have offended someone,
apologize.
 When you admire something about someone, acknowledge it.

-  Accept that you may be wrong.  I made a mistake once.

I offer these observations to clarify what I meant by "niceties", not to
preach.  It also gave me an opportunity to think about and articulate to
myself some ideas that I have and for that I thank you :-)  I don't
claim to
live up to these precepts all of the time or even most of the time but at
least they are goals.

To I.P.’s
 “ No matter how nice a post is, there's always someone it STILL offends
even if interpreted correctly. Three more people will misinterpret even
the most
carefully written post”,
Dedman responded with another tidbit of wisdom:
“That's certainly true and has been my experience.  But at least if I have
made the effort, I know I did the best I could.”

There are people on this group whose opinion of me I value and whose
politics
I am probably diametrically and passionately opposed to.  I'm right, of
course, but would rather not jeopardize them as a resource by pursuing the
issue.

End of Dedman's Guide
-------------------------

To that I must again add what I believe is the most crucial rule of all:
People should feel free to debate or oppose or attack any fact, logic,
or opinion they wish, but should focus on the message (i.e., debate the
issue) rather than attack the messenger (i.e., wage ad hominem/ flame
wars/ personal attacks) if they want to promote rational discourse and
appear as credible adults.

I.P.