[Spellyans] SWF review results.

Daniel Prohaska daniel at ryan-prohaska.com
Wed Apr 9 12:42:46 BST 2014

On Apr 8, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Michael Everson wrote:

> On 8 Apr 2014, at 14:08, Daniel Prohaska <daniel at ryan-prohaska.com> wrote:
>> Yes, we all read it, Michael. And we all seem to be reacting the same way to your posts. Yet you insist on denying the fact that you come across as being insulting, despite the fact that you do not intend to be so. This should tall you you might want to work on your communicative skills and your wording. 
> Thanks, Dan.

My pleasure.

> It’s gratifying to see consensus that only I can possibly be at fault.

It's not about fault, it's about tone, or rather style. If your communicative style is offensive you will not get your actual point across. Reaction of list members and Revivalists elsewhere are ample proof of this. To bad you don't realise this. 

> My own feelings about what other people say about my views don’t matter. 

Your views, were not the issue. Your style was. 

> I maintain, again, that I responded with courteous discussion to Craig’s original post,

If the recipient felt offended, you simply have to accept this, and believe him. Whether you intended to be (dis) courteous or not is not the point. If you offend, say sorry, and assure the person that you did not intend to offend. It's easy. Try it!

> and that I responded with frustration when I felt that he had misrepresented my views. And I have explained this and offered him an apology. 

Good. It's a start. Now you can think about how to avoid such misunderstandings in the future… 

> I have re-read my original response and I continue to believe that it was rational and courteous discussion of his comments about the graph ‹oe›. 

Your views aren't in question. You two had a difference of opinion. That#s OK. Accept that people have different opinions. It's not always about being "right" or "winning" an argument. 

> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

More information about the Spellyans mailing list