Quote:
Originally Posted by Dezzy
(Post 10027779)
Now this is a good example of baiting so everyone listen up. Telling someone that they are on your ignore list is considered baiting because it serves no purpose other than to draw a reaction from them. If someone is on your ignore list, continue to ignore them or choose to respond to their posts in a way that isn't baiting.
Telling someone that they are being ignored is baiting and will likely net you a few infractions if you do it enough.
|
Dezzy, this is my thought... I think what words we choose have a major impact. Many of your suggestive posts (like how we can make peace) can be easily misconstrued as instead confrontational by your heavy reliance of the royal /you/. If the comment is general, then "you" shouldn't be used so liberally as it can easily be misconstrued as personal, whereas our intentions come off much clearer when we use the words specific to that context... moreover, if the intent is to be personal or pointed, that would also be clearer as well with the correct usage of you... :laugh: Then they would know you are being serious and delivering a statement to their behavior.
An example of where this really doesn't work... if "you" is lumped with "sorry" or other words that are meant to have a conciliatory tone in the same sentence, it can give the impression of the opposite, rather than inferring the sense of open-ness or genuine thought that we mean to convey.
I used to have a major issue with this with my writing for a long time and changing this pushed my writing and I've been much more successful in conveying the right tone. I think it also forces me to the use more specific terms, sentence structures... so not only a little bit more flavor to writing, but those thoughts are made much clearer than a post of peppered yous that can misdirect or mask the intention of my words...
The other issue, I think... if someone makes a suggestion... don't always shoot someone down so quickly. I think that you have been much better with this in general and I feel you've made real efforts here. We are human beings and prone to bad days, so I always think why talk down to someone in that position and make them feel even worse. I'm sure it makes your biggest fans very happy when their specific people are knocked a peg... but obviously that makes enemies even quicker when we are in a power position if we pick on their friends... I have been through a bad witch hunt myself, with calls and threats to my home among other nasty things and have the emotional scars to prove it... so I understand how it feels to find yourself in this position constantly and not know what to do to change it... my only thought, I just think that we already have very little control over how people receive some of our thoughts... why make it even easier for them to distort our intentions and claim they can mind read. I don't think change your heart... but maybe think about if some of your wording can be bullet-proofed so that you yourself don't have to wonder if you made a mistake someplace... then their misreading is really a separate issue.
Quote:
THE ROYAL WE: The first person plural used by a person with supreme authority, or, in modern times, sometimes to preserve anonymity. Supposedly, the first king to use ‘we’ in this way was Richard I in the Charter to Winchester (1190). “We are not amused” is a rebuke often attributed to straightlaced Queen Victoria. In the 20th century, magazines and newspapers frequently use the ‘editorial we’ to express an opinion that may in fact be shared by no one but the writer. Lisa Alther expressed an opinion about that in her novel ‘Kinflicks’ (1979): “She had learnt . . . that it is impossible to discuss issues civilly with a person who insisted on referring to himself as ‘we.’’ (Facts on File Dictionary of Clichés)
___________________
One of the reasons, I think, ‘you’ might not hear to much about the ‘royal you’ is that it is almost impossible to distinguish it from the personal you. If a commander says to a group of soldiers ‘YOU must go forth and give it your all,’ who can tell if he means the individual soldier, the singular ‘you,’ or the group plural ‘you.’ Maybe the southerners in the U.S. solved this problem with the invention of ‘you-all’ and some of my less literate N.Y.C. buddies with ‘youse.’ (<:)
|
Haha, "y'all" :love: Another word I used to overuse as well (in place of royal you)... but I've cut that fat as well... |
