RE: communication skills & the online search (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

SylvereApLeanan -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/28/2009 9:42:13 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: daintydimples

How important are written communication skills to you? Does a lack in this area imply a lack in verbal communication, or do you feel they are not related?

If someone is not a very good written communicator, do you move on to the phone ASAP, or is that a deal breaker right out of the gate?



Let's face it, the first impression we all have of each other on a site like this is through our writing.  It might be in email, on the boards, or even in chat, but it's still written communication.  As the old cliche goes, you never get a second chance to make a first impression.  For me, the first message is crucial if someone wants my attention.  I'm a professional writer, so the written word is only marginally less important to me than oxygen.  Someone who fails to communicate well in writing is not going to be compatible with me.  Either the person is lacking in education, lacking in intelligence, or lacking in motivation to put forth the miniscule effort required to use a spell checking program or -- gods forbid! -- a dictionary.  Lack of education can be remedied with the aforementioned dictionary if a person is motivated to do so; lack of intellect or laziness cannot.  I'm not going to waste my time on someone either too stupid or too lazy to use complete sentences, correct spelling, and standard grammar.  This isn't to say I'm unforgiving of the occasional typo.  However, I can tell the difference between an accidental oversight and chronic inability or unwillingness to write well. 
 
If you (generic) can't be bothered to spell out simple words such as "you" or "too" and substitute text speak like 'u' and '2' instead, you can forget about getting a positive response.  Depending on my mood and the content of your message, I either won't reply at all or my return message will be scathing, followed promptly by use of the Block feature. 
 
 



SylvereApLeanan -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/28/2009 9:55:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend
Shakespeare sucks at communicating. Most people don't understand what he is saying, propably not even in his time. Your words we can understand. He was propably a great writer, but communication..who knows.


I have to correct this assumption.  Shakespeare was a brilliant communicator.  His plays, in particular, were full of clever innuendo, pointed observations on human nature, and every one of them written entirely as poetic verse.  He was wildly popular in his time.  I started reading Shakespeare around the age of seven and was able to understand enough of what he wrote to grasp the plots.  I daresay anyone who took the time to read his work would be able to understand most of it, even if some of the "pop culture" references of the period got overlooked.



Falkenstein -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/28/2009 10:59:14 AM)

I think too that "writing skills" must be detailed into content, effort and style, in descending order.


Not so long ago, I read an inflammed exchange here on a thread I had started. Libellule was fierily defending her opinion (and attacking her opponent's) with excellent arguments, a good logic ... and a miserable punctuation.

I do not think that the last point ruined her standing in any reader's mind. In contrary, I suppose that ,in a country like the USA that worship the selfmade man, it even elevated it. I was in any case duly impressed.

Kinky regards

Henry



Falkenstein -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/28/2009 11:10:47 AM)

daintydimples,

I will probably ruin my reputation here, but I daresay that the quality of the posts on this forum, in terms of content effort and style is significantly higher than what I get as "professional" mail should treat as such.

The quality is now so low, that bad decisions can now be traced back to bad mails. The worst is that the culprit have absolutely no shame or feeling of guilt.

Kinky regards

Henry



TurboJugend -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/28/2009 12:12:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend
Shakespeare sucks at communicating. Most people don't understand what he is saying, propably not even in his time. Your words we can understand. He was propably a great writer, but communication..who knows.


I have to correct this assumption.  Shakespeare was a brilliant communicator.  His plays, in particular, were full of clever innuendo, pointed observations on human nature, and every one of them written entirely as poetic verse.  He was wildly popular in his time.  I started reading Shakespeare around the age of seven and was able to understand enough of what he wrote to grasp the plots.  I daresay anyone who took the time to read his work would be able to understand most of it, even if some of the "pop culture" references of the period got overlooked.


what makes your assumption right and mine false?
The plays are ofcourse soemthing else then what he wrote. Seeing people move is better communication then writing itself.
Especially when people hardly could read unless you were rich?



daintydimples -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/28/2009 12:14:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend

quote:

ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend
Shakespeare sucks at communicating. Most people don't understand what he is saying, propably not even in his time. Your words we can understand. He was propably a great writer, but communication..who knows.


I have to correct this assumption.  Shakespeare was a brilliant communicator.  His plays, in particular, were full of clever innuendo, pointed observations on human nature, and every one of them written entirely as poetic verse.  He was wildly popular in his time.  I started reading Shakespeare around the age of seven and was able to understand enough of what he wrote to grasp the plots.  I daresay anyone who took the time to read his work would be able to understand most of it, even if some of the "pop culture" references of the period got overlooked.


what makes your assumption right and mine false?
The plays are ofcourse soemthing else then what he wrote. Seeing people move is better communication then writing itself.
Especially when people hardly could read unless you were rich?


Centuries of literary criticism.





TurboJugend -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/28/2009 12:18:31 PM)

a good writer can be a good writer for his select audience. Doesn't mean he is a good communicater.
A doctor can be very good at what he does..he might be able to write a nice book about it. But will he be able to explain it to those who are not doctors?
So he is good but can't explain it to me...meaning..communications sucks. 

Communication again....sender..message ..reciever. One doesn't work....no communication..how good the sender might be.



SylvereApLeanan -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/28/2009 2:46:19 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: daintydimples

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend
what makes your assumption right and mine false?
The plays are ofcourse soemthing else then what he wrote. Seeing people move is better communication then writing itself.
Especially when people hardly could read unless you were rich?


Centuries of literary criticism.



[:D]  Yep, that pretty much says it all. 
 
I was required to study his plays and poetry as part of my degree.  Although the plays were not published until after Shakespeare's death and are written from the memories of the actors who performed them, the language is still in the style of the period.  Also, universal literacy rates in the Elizabethan era increased dramatically, and one third of the male population of England could read by 1600.  Shakespeare was not part of the noble class, nor was his father rich, yet he still attended school and learned to read and write.  So your assertion that his plays are something "other then [sic] what he wrote" and that one had to be wealthy in order to understand his words doesn't hold up to scrutiny.
 
Edited to add: Shakespeare was popular with people of all classes of his time, from commoner to Queen.



aldompdx -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 12:50:17 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Falkenstein
I think too that "writing skills" must be detailed into content, effort and style, in descending order.


I generally agree. As I have often posted, substance supercedes form. However, the substance must get across, or it may reflect a lack of intention. There is a big difference between a lazy American who just does not care enough to reasonably communicate, an underprivileged and less educated person, and a person who is not a native English speaker. The distinction is often apparent in the post.

leadership527, my comment is not directed to mere typographical errors, or random keyboard failures. To put it another way --
is ewe aent been sir 2 vut joo miin 2 cey, aye spek joo antsir gatin aent 2 gute.

I even had to edit my own post to correct errors. Nobody is perfect.



TurboJugend -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 1:01:28 AM)

I don't doubt his skills as writer. I read his plays for school.
I doubt if people understood the deeper meaning of some of his plays ( you can read some of them in several ways). I am sure they enjoyed the plays.
Besides that...looking at a play ot writing..is still no communication.
There is no way for the audience to respond...accept to aplaud perhaps.Therfor..it is no form of communication.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communication

google books has soem nice stuff about him
http://books.google.com/books?id=R2KNp4uehecC&pg=PA280&lpg=PA280&dq=shakespeare+understood+in+his+time&source=bl&ots=eDETga7VNU&sig=bHCUt3jd0JZmDfy-NurH1fBpPVM&hl=en&ei=Bd-YSobYMOSTjAe3x8yoBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2#v=onepage&q=shakespeare%20understood%20in%20his%20time&f=false



RebornMaster -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 1:40:31 AM)

I'm not so good with my clarity in writing but am trying to improve but I think I'm very good at my verbal skills and converying my message clearly. It's rare my slave has to ask for clarification when we're talking, but when we email or skype or something, I have to explain myself much more often, but perhaps I'm just too rushed when I type.

something I'm working on here as I'm new and a few times I've been asked what I meant or conveyed the wrong meaning and I am trying to be clear and concise :)





MistressDevito -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 4:10:43 AM)

Communication skills are important, but on the net, things are very impersonal.
My slave and I communicate best face to face.
 

Respectfully,

MistressDevito



porcelaine -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 5:41:20 AM)

communication in this form is not solely dependent on what is written, but generally includes the manner it was conveyed, level of honesty or sincerity in expression, and whether or not you felt something in their words, which you will define on your own.

i have read a lot of people in my time here and will honestly admit that it does run the gamut. what generally got my attention had very little to do with their ability to write, but more closely to what they said in those words. i saw elements of humor, frustration, arrogance, naivete, and on rare occasions real transparency. whether or not these things appealed to me is based on what i gravitate to when connecting.

i'm careful in my judgment because eloquence and proficiency aren't necessarily related. writing comes easily for me, but that doesn't imply that i'm a better woman or slave than others who communicate differently. perhaps i can articulate my desires and experiences effortlessly, or merely have the knack of making my audience believe these things instead. without further exploration and additional dialogue, it is difficult to detect whether what appears fine at first glance, is anything but that.

porcelaine



happylittlepet -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 6:50:46 AM)

Many typos etc. can be caught by

p r o o f  r e a d i n g

the post/profile. Even once will make a huge difference.

Many profiles show that that does not happen. Not really surprising when even university students have to be asked, repeatedly, to proof read their essays.

Edit: I used the PostReply button, and my post says 'in reply to SylvereApLeanan. My post is not in reply to the first message on this page.



SylvereApLeanan -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 9:50:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend

I don't doubt his skills as writer. I read his plays for school.
I doubt if people understood the deeper meaning of some of his plays ( you can read some of them in several ways). I am sure they enjoyed the plays.
Besides that...looking at a play ot writing..is still no communication.
There is no way for the audience to respond...accept to aplaud perhaps.Therfor..it is no form of communication.


I'm not going to hijack the thread to debate the relative merits of theater as a form of communication or of Shakespeare's prowess as a communicator.  If you want to continue, you may contact me off the boards.  Suffice it to say, I heartily disagree that Shakespeare failed to communicate on several levels with audiences composed of all socioeconomic classes for the past 500+ years.  If you wish to maintain he did fail, I'll be happy to put you in touch with any number of literature professors who can provide far more convincing and relevant evidence of your misinterpretation than a Wikipedia entry.
 
We now return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

 
*Edited for typos 



RavenMuse -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 10:41:47 AM)

It depends what you mean by good at written communication.

Grammer, punctuation, spelling don't much bother Me at all. Mine are very far from perfect but better than most would expect from a dyslexic (At least when I am not tired, the more tired I am the more the dyslexia shows through and I only notice when I come back and re-read what I posted however long before!). All I require there is 'good enough' not to get in the way of Me understanding what was written.

Effort to effectivly communicate, a reasonable vocabulary, the ability to understand concepts and form an inteligent responce. Those are essential, someone who can show Me from their words that they have the self awareness to make rational choises, strength of character enough to form, give and stand by their opinion. Even if that person is eventualy going to be in a position to be acting in accordance with My opinions and decisions, it doesn't mean they have no opinions of their own.

Conversley if their memo's show Me someone who can only write in sound bites and TXTSPK then I see that as putting in no effort at all and in all likelyhood having far too low an IQ to interest Me. Such memos are likely to recieve a curt 'thanks but no thanks' and be block/delete/ignored.



stella41b -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 11:28:26 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: daintydimples

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend

quote:

ORIGINAL: SylvereApLeanan

quote:

ORIGINAL: TurboJugend
Shakespeare sucks at communicating. Most people don't understand what he is saying, propably not even in his time. Your words we can understand. He was propably a great writer, but communication..who knows.


I have to correct this assumption.  Shakespeare was a brilliant communicator.  His plays, in particular, were full of clever innuendo, pointed observations on human nature, and every one of them written entirely as poetic verse.  He was wildly popular in his time.  I started reading Shakespeare around the age of seven and was able to understand enough of what he wrote to grasp the plots.  I daresay anyone who took the time to read his work would be able to understand most of it, even if some of the "pop culture" references of the period got overlooked.


what makes your assumption right and mine false?
The plays are ofcourse soemthing else then what he wrote. Seeing people move is better communication then writing itself.
Especially when people hardly could read unless you were rich?


Centuries of literary criticism.



And people like me who have gone through the training to be actors and who have performed Shakespeare live on stage (in my former self I was Falstaff in King Henry IV Parts 1 and 2)

Not that I'm in complete disagreement with you here TurboJugend, your point is still a valid one but you could have used a much better example. Eugene O'Neill comes to mind almost instantly. My life is connected with theatre and I have seen lots of plays but even with several attempts I have never managed to get through or even stay awake at a Eugene O'Neill performance = the closest was a couple of years ago when I made it through to 20 minutes from the end at the Old Vic in London but this was largely thanks to Kevin Spacey's stage acting.

However

quote:


His plays, in particular, were full of clever innuendo, pointed observations on human nature, and every one of them written entirely as poetic verse.



But as the Devil would have it three misbegotten knaves in Kendal Green came at my back and let drive at me and it was so dark Hal that Thou couldst not see Thy hand.

Peace, good pint pot, good tickle-brain Harry. I do not only marvel at where thou spendest thy time, but also how thou art accompanied. For though the camomile the more it is trodden on the faster it grows, yet youth the more it is wasted the sooner it wears. That thou art my son, I have only thy mother's word, partly my own opinion, but chiefly a villainous trick of thine eye and a foolish hanging of thy nether lip that doth warrant me. If then, thou be son to me, here lies the point. Why, being son to me, art thou so pointed at? Shall the blessed sun of heaven prove a micher, and eat blackberries? A question not to be asked. Shall the son of England prove a thief, and take purses? A question to be asked. There is a thing Harry...

Oh sugar! That's about as much as I can remember but I can probably only remember this much because the second text was the monologue for the auditions. Both are from the part of Falstaff, King Henry IV Part 1.

As we can see it wasn't that all Shakespeare's plays were written entirely in verse, but the sonnets were all written in verse using what is known as the Iambic pentameter with either ten or eleven syllables per line and these sonnets are contained in some of the plays.

Also (at least to me) if you read the texts (extracts) above even despite the archaic language (which I believe come from the Arden series of texts) the ideas are very clearly communicated which is why people still go and see Shakespeare being performed even today.



LillyoftheVally -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 11:37:41 AM)

The main flaw I see with Shakespeare is almost two points inter connected, one his history and legacy, he is considered so wonderful by so many it gives him a lot to live up to and it is for this reason that well I think Blackadder said it best

After hitting him with a complete collection of his works ' That is for school children everywhere'

We 'have' to read Shakespeare (Tempest, Much ado, Hamlet and Romeo and Juliet for me) that it becomes academic high culture not to be enjoyed but endured. I do think that when something is critically acclaimed it is associated with something unattainable. Shame really, I do enjoy some Shakespeare, but I think the language can be difficult to understand as written plays (as most children study for the most part) rather than performed as should be the case.



rideemwet -> RE: communication skills & the online search (8/29/2009 2:01:56 PM)

While the phrase in my signature was for verbal content, it often applies to thing written in the forums ...



Acer49 -> RE: communication skills & the online search (9/1/2009 10:20:15 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: daintydimples

This has been prompted by several recent threads, all rants about "I can't find a sub, dominant, pet rock (whatever)." One thing all these rants have in common is a distinct lack of written communication skills from the OP.

So now to my question:

How important are written communication skills to you? Does a lack in this area imply a lack in verbal communication, or do you feel they are not related?

If someone is not a very good written communicator, do you move on to the phone ASAP, or is that a deal breaker right out of the gate?

Any additional thoughts on this subject most welcome.



No, I do not believe that just because one does not write well that he/she is incapable of a verbal exchange. I would not discount someone "right out of the gate" because of this. Some of us have had the luxury of private schools while others went to public; some of us had good schools while others have not. Some of us have had teachers, who were able to focus on the job at hand, others, their only desire was to get through the day without getting their heads blown off. All I can say is thank GOD for spell and grammar checkers




Page: <<   < prev  1 2 3 [4] 5   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
4.296875E-02