=- James Cameron wrote on Wed 20.Jun'07 at 10:02:02 +1000 -=
> On Tue, Jun 19, 2007 at 09:43:39PM +0200, Rado S wrote:
> > =- James Quick wrote on Mon 18.Jun'07 at 9:07:39 +1000 -=
>
> I'm not sure what this "Quick" means. Check your translator.
No idea anymore how this came to be, your entry here is quite old.
> > Does this mean you want me to split the mail up for you to read
> > 1 passage after the other?
>
> Yes, one issue at a time. I note you took 13 lines to ask that
> question, yet I thought it was quite clear from what I originally
> said.
You claim you know everything there is to know about mail styles and
yours is the only valid unconditionally?
You're wrong, at least with the latter.
There is no same advantage for everyone to do it your way.
It just happens to work for you and some others, not all.
For the former case I gave explanations justifying exceptions for
this case which you might not have been aware of.
If you prefer to ignore them unconditionally, then I wasn't aware of
your attitude so far, I'm sorry for feeling the urge to explain to
someone who doesn't care.
> > What's that different than editing each passage on your own as
> > time permits?
>
> I read hundreds of messages each day, yours are the largest and
> most complex, and so you are at the limit of what is interesting
> to respond to.
> {...}
> But if I get more than one or two mails from you each day, I'll
> presume they are an attack and I will ignore them. Learn the pace.
>
> > {quoted from earlier reply: respond to open questions? }
>
> I will do so once you send small mails with a single issue in
> them, like everybody else does. When you go monolithic, I ignore
> you because of the high cost of answering. On the other hand,
> please keep no more than one question open at a time.
It's not my fault but rather yours if you refuse cooperation because
you can't discipline yourself not to respond instantly and take your
time to think about it before you respond.
In particular since you failed to correct the style when it was your
turn to respond. Why not follow your own advice of splitting up and
adjusting subjects as needed when you had the chance?
Why blame me for doing the same you did? Lead by good example.
The items are still unanswered, try again better yourself.
Besides, the time you saved by not responding to split up mails you
can spend back on the big one: the amount of time doesn't change,
just your perception.
Neither changes the pace, if you take your time as required rather
than hurry to answer instantly.
Thoughtful responses are more useful than fast ones anyway.
Nobody forces you to press the send button as soon as you finish
reading a paragraph.
You make things appear worse for you because you can't adjust your
own pace for yourself, so you blame me instead? Doesn't compute.
Maybe you shouldn't mix your daily business routine with your spare
time, or acknowledge that you can't commit yourself as needed.
OTOH, if you don't like big responses, don't make them yourself to
ask me stuff and then refuse to react when I respond to you.
I started as simple as possible while as detailed as necessary (which
made it quite big), but you made it worse rather than better; I just
reacted my "normal" way as you already have done to ask me back.
> You should learn to be like others if you want to get your message
> across.
Exceptional cases call for exceptional means.
If you don't acknowledge "exceptional", then I can't help you.
If you don't care to learn, then I can't help you.
I can only do what I can while explaining what I have to.
If you want to cut it down so that you can continue your daily
routine of little attention to each item, then this misses the point
of dealing with complex matters adequately.
If things were so simple I wouldn't have to explain.
And things would just work on their own. But they don't.
This reminds me: do you refuse changes because you _can't_ (low on
time) or because you don't _want_ to change your habits (keep own
current trek commitment level low)? Would you want to do more if you
time permitted?
On a side note: you have mistaken the "equal" as if I had asked to
be treated so. In fact the "equal" applied to you, in the context
that I asked all addressees(?) the same, despite having discussed
the questions with you before in another form. So "equal" as in same
form of questions and responses from the people listed.
"Reasonable and constructive" means also understanding to approach
things differently than being used to, i.e. not equal like others or
before.
> Communication is the responsibility of both parties; the
> transmitter and receiver. If you think otherwise, then your
> communication will be ignored.
Correct. It was not my fault alone, yet you refuse to respond
at least _your way_ (since you don't like mine).
--
© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.