In some cases no.
In this case, with everyone telling you how shit you are at communication, and you insisting that you’re only a nitpicking turd when it’s important, you’re especially ill-suited to make that judgment.
Ironically, your shit judgment will preclude you from realizing that.
He’s just a victim of a woke mob.
OK, and what is the problem?
That form of sentence construction is something I use very often for professional purposes, it is a mandated style. The reason being that the text needs to be depersonalised and generalised and focussed on process rather than person.
I’m sure as well that I’ve mentioned previously my priority interest in what and why something happens rather than who did it. If that leads to a passive voice then so be it.
I neither trust nor value your assessment of my communciation skills. I have a full and successful career behind me built on my ability to get across difficult concepts to challenging audiences.
Do I give greater weight to that? Or to the motivated and biased reading and reasoning of a few anonymous internet posters, predisposed to knee-jerk judgements?
Your criticism is irrelevant. It comes from your dislike of what is being said (and often what you imagine is being said) rather than any honest attempt to engage.
If it’s the “few anonymous internet posters” that you’re currently trying to establish actual communication with, I would think that you’d at least try to take seriously their criticisms of your approach to communication, instead of just complacently patting yourself on the back about how well you used to be understood by those other people you used to talk to.
On the Internet no one knows you’re a dog.
I’ve said in the past, directly to you in various threads, that either I or you are not communicating well, because I try and make arguments and your responses make no sense.
In GD, I’ve said it politely, because I have to. Here, I’ll say you’re so full of shit that your blue eyes are brown. I don’t have this communication problem with anyone else on the board.
But we know you’re a mouse!
Again: earlier today you asked me to declare whether I agreed with my imagination of the meaning of your paraphrase of your interpretation of an unnamed person’s posts. My evaluation is almost beside the point here. You suck at clear communication, and if you believe someone once told you otherwise in your career, you were probably as accurate in your understanding then as you are in your nearly every post on these boards.
Or, benefit of the doubt, Novelty_Bobble is used to communication by lecturing to audiences, not so much by written debate. Getting audiences to understand concepts, even difficult concepts, that they’re being paid or graded for understanding is one type of communication challenge. Getting a productive discussion going between different people arguing for their different points of view is another.
I love the way we are focusing on the deplorable turd’s communication skills.
We are talking about someone whose hobby horse is making it easier to use hurtful language and get away with it without even social opprobrium.
I can just see them lecturing you the board of Yorkshire County Cricket Club on how to set up a system where Asian and Black cricketers can be racially abused and everyone in charge is deemed innocent.
You are mandated to make fact free vague insinuations in your professional writing?
I just hope you aren’t writing MSDS or other safety materials.
it is current, not something in the past.
If someone is emotionally attached to a subject rather than open to honest debate and actually don’t like what is being said, or are uncomfortable with the implications of answering questions honestly, then it is far easier and more comfortable to pretend to not understand, or raise some other objection regarding validity.
It is a classic motivated reasoning approach and you see it all the time on contentious subjects. Everyone does it to it a degree, it is a default approach and it takes effort to combat it. An effort that not everyone is aware they should make.
Watch out for it wherever contentious subjects arise. Funny how this imagined communication problem of mine is only manifest in those emotionally sensitive areas.
Don’t you have to wonder though, when everyone else says you have a problem? I certainly would,
It is all of the above at various times and to various degrees.
My current challenge involves a lot of small group mediation and facilitation where opposing views needed filtering, de-escalating and challenging by asking questions, assessing evidence with a consensus reached and an agreed plan of action sketched out.
The subjects are often less emotionally involved than what I choose to get involved with on here but I see a lot of the same behaviours from some participants (though it is always far easier to handle that in real-life)
It is true to say that everyone who is saying I have a problem is saying I have a problem. That means nothing. You don’t see the messages I get saying the opposite do you?
Some people will always criticise and it is dwarfed by the recognition I get in the part of my life that actually matters to me.
No, I don’t.
See everyone, here is a perfect example.
A purposefully malign interpretation of my imagined position. No actual facts behind it, no recognition that I actually said the opposite.
There is nothing much to be about that, such people are immune to facts and any clarifying comments from me will be hand-waved away.
Criticism of my communication skills, from people capable of posting such dishonesty, is not to be taken seriously.