>"That really burned me up. Because
>when someone posts a short
>comment that appears pithy and
>tart, but which is also
>obscure, without explaining the reasoning
>behind it, the suggestion is
>that anyone as "smart" as
>them will immediately be able
>to unravel the thought processes
>that led to the comment,
>and everyone else isn't worth
>bothering to communicate with."
>
>While the onus for clarity on
>this site lies with the
>poster, it seems to me
>that a whole lot is
>being read into what was
>posted.

TA DA! Of course a lot is being read into what was posted! Because the post itself communicates nothing! My point exactly. So what else CAN you do except read into it? All we really know for sure about this is:

The poster either:

a) assumes that the thought processes used to arrive at the conclusion THIS POST ABOUT A FROG'S HEALTH DEMONSTRATES WHY SEASON 2 IS NOT AS GOOD AS SEASON 1 are self evident

or

b) is deliberately withholding these thought processes - and I can see no reason to do this other than an attitude that anyone smart enough would be able to figure it out without having it explained

or

c) has no thought processes.

Since to anyone with an elementary grasp of either logic or common sense, a conclusion which can be supported can not be directly extrapolated from a presupposition which is in no way directly related, the comment is either deliberately obscure or completely nonsensical.

it might be less infuriating to ask them what they meant or why they are taking a certain position rather than assuming the worst. Unless you know someone well, its impossible to know exactly what their motivation is for anything. By deciding on ones own what someone else feeling/thinking/saying/implying/inferring doesnt make one any better at communication than the original offender.

The reason I choose to read into it rather than contacting the poster to ask what they meant is that nothing about the content or language of this post makes ME personally want to even know what this person meant. And again, to me the tone suggests deliberate obscurity as well as presumed superiority.

I mean, be honest - can you say out loud

"mabye this post helps explain why this season is not as good as the first season"

WITHOUT spitting!?

"Thanks for the digression in your original post. I have mild dyslexia and my brain goes faster than my fingers. Catching ALL the typos sometimes is too much work."

Way too much work, IMO. This is the Internet, not a doctoral thesis.

But that thing about "prerogative" I was genuinely curious about, because it was a mistake I made for most of my life. I guess for you it was just a typo. Boy do I feel dumb. Not for having done it but for having admitted it. Because good spelling is a point of pride for me, and to admit that that one word got by me, and for all those years, was, well, about as bright as admitting I cried at Eleanor's exit speech.

Thanks for the crash course in PM-ing. I know that will save me a lot of time when I do it. Whether I will do it tonight, I don't even know at this very second.

Just to be clear, I'm not SURE it was the "nature took its course" phrase that confused people about Everett, I just know that a bunch of people were confused. I undestood that meant that the falcon had followed its bird of prey instincts and attacked. I just know that something someone said somewhere confused a lot of folks. I hope this somewhat clears some things up in some way.

"Exactly! That's a 20% sarcasm reply rate. My posts complimenting the show have about an 80% NO-reply rate."

I have to say that after going back and researching that comment, I am confused at how you reached your conculsion. I found 2 posts on summaries where you pointed out things missed by the summarizer coupled with a "good job" type statement. Similar, I might point out, to many other posts on the threads that did not seem to warrant a reply. I found and pleasant exchange with Joisey on his summary. I found 2 replies to you on Tiger Lilys summary both noting that they agreed with you with regard to liking the show. Our exchanges here have been civil and postive, so Im not sure where your coming from with the (about) 80% figure.

Guess what percent of my instinctual emotional reactions to my experiences at this site are determined by statistics?

Anyway, I was just playing around there. However I'm pretty sure the 100% sweeping generalization rate was correct You've actually spent more time analyzing my posts and their responses than I have. Your findings have indeed been revealing, and certainly don't support what I have imagined my communications here to have been.