That's true, it does. The side road to PC-ness turned off of the main avenue of sarcasm and irony in the beginning of the thread, and I pretty much continued down that side road.

Sorry for the distraction and straying off topic.

That's true, it does. The side road to PC-ness turned off of the main avenue of sarcasm and irony in the beginning of the thread, and I pretty much continued down that side road.

Sorry for the distraction and straying off topic.

Not a problem, I did use the word 'interesting'.

In my role as a training consultant I am always interested in peoples views on such matters.

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

let me know if you understand this.

Moss

To be honest I'm not sure that I do, are you explaining the difference between how a subject is approached vs how one should actually verbally convey that message?

I usually say what I think, or nothing at all. I cant be bothered with tip toeing around a subject. If people don't like what I say, they'll just have to learn how to deal with it.

I usually find that people appreciate my direct approach, I suppose they find that refreshing from an estate agent

OK, I used a twist on words that I often use to make a point, I sometimes use, there is a difference,' In doing things Right', and doing the, ' Right Thing',

I read this as, for example, helping someone out of a fix and then putting it right and then being economical with the truth, as long as it is all put right and no one is hurt, no one is compromised, all ends well. Doing, ' Things Right', can have altogether separate identities and differing paths, but I do understand that the meaning can be blurred and I have used a pretty black and white example.

I find it difficult with people who, in particular, say they are a straight talking guy, either like it or lump it, I find I like the softer approach and try and understand and explain and talk people round to the best position, if we have differing ideas or even ideals, I would like to think we can use them and move forward, using a mix of both.

I also find bluff, straight talking guys very opinionated, which in turn does not lend itself to a conducive way forward, having said that, when needs be, needs must.

In my view it is not tip toeing around a subject, you can hit it head on, but explaining and understanding and being sympathetic, empathetic and listening will go a long way, rather than just speaking your mind.

I will very rarely bandy words with someone who is talking at me, instead of to me.

Moss

Interesting thread, Moss. I must be a thickhead because I find it difficult to discern the difference between the statement that there is a ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and the following one that there is ' A Way of Saying Things Right'. What is all the more confusing is that the cornerstone of effective communication is clarity of meaning.

Good Post Ping,

but I will have to answer it later, but I will answer it.

Good Luck

Moss

Interesting thread, Moss. I must be a thickhead because I find it difficult to discern the difference between the statement that there is a ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and the following one that there is ' A Way of Saying Things Right'. What is all the more confusing is that the cornerstone of effective communication is clarity of meaning.

Good Post Ping,

but I will have to answer it later, but I will answer it.

Good Luck

Moss

I would add to Ping's post, 'being understood!'

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

let me know if you understand this.

Moss

To be honest I'm not sure that I do, are you explaining the difference between how a subject is approached vs how one should actually verbally convey that message?

I usually say what I think, or nothing at all. I cant be bothered with tip toeing around a subject. If people don't like what I say, they'll just have to learn how to deal with it.

I usually find that people appreciate my direct approach, I suppose they find that refreshing from an estate agent

OK, I used a twist on words that I often use to make a point, I sometimes use, there is a difference,' In doing things Right', and doing the, ' Right Thing',

I read this as, for example, helping someone out of a fix and then putting it right and then being economical with the truth, as long as it is all put right and no one is hurt, no one is compromised, all ends well. Doing, ' Things Right', can have altogether separate identities and differing paths, but I do understand that the meaning can be blurred and I have used a pretty black and white example.

I find it difficult with people who, in particular, say they are a straight talking guy, either like it or lump it, I find I like the softer approach and try and understand and explain and talk people round to the best position, if we have differing ideas or even ideals, I would like to think we can use them and move forward, using a mix of both.

I also find bluff, straight talking guys very opinionated, which in turn does not lend itself to a conducive way forward, having said that, when needs be, needs must.

In my view it is not tip toeing around a subject, you can hit it head on, but explaining and understanding and being sympathetic, empathetic and listening will go a long way, rather than just speaking your mind.

I will very rarely bandy words with someone who is talking at me, instead of to me.

Moss

I don't have time to elaborate right now, but will add more later.

To start, I think there are a few assumptions in the statements above.

Some people would find "economy with the truth" to be condescending at times, and also by logic to assume that one is in a superior or better advantaged position to the "truth". In reality, what may be perceived as a problem for one, is not for another, but by "being economical with the truth" - or what others might call evasive - the assumed position never has to be questioned, challenged, or revised. But, I agree on principle, that there are some things better left unsaid, but that is a different sphere from one of voluntary and intentional discussion. I am concerned more with the latter.

This is also most definitely a cultural issue, and could be argued that by stating one preference over another is largely akin to saying you prefer one cultural affectation over another, largely the speaker's own; no big surprise or irony there.

Another assumption is that direct speak excludes a diversity of thought or opinion, or that it is analogous to dogmatic, one-sided, competitive or aggressive discourse. I think there are plenty of examples to show that is a fallacy. There are many ways that direct discourse especially with polemics actually accomplishes the reverse, or a defense against what could be arguably called passive-aggressiveness, evasiveness, and avoidance, as in the often misused and misidentified "irony".

I guess as the boorish, frank, honest and therefore by most Brit's definition the simpleton American, I think there is a use for both subterfuge and directness, but I find that the former is often used as a put-down or shaded condescension, hidden behind a facade of respectability, sort of like a sniper.

So, both approaches are tools of communication and social constructions, and both have their higher and lower uses. The one you prefer is the one that is most familiar and makes you feel more comfortable, I suppose.

I say tomato, and you say tomato. Yeah, that's it.

You say tomato and I say oh shut up!

There is a , ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and ' A Way of Saying Things Right ',

let me know if you understand this.

Moss

To be honest I'm not sure that I do, are you explaining the difference between how a subject is approached vs how one should actually verbally convey that message?

I usually say what I think, or nothing at all. I cant be bothered with tip toeing around a subject. If people don't like what I say, they'll just have to learn how to deal with it.

I usually find that people appreciate my direct approach, I suppose they find that refreshing from an estate agent

OK, I used a twist on words that I often use to make a point, I sometimes use, there is a difference,' In doing things Right', and doing the, ' Right Thing',

I read this as, for example, helping someone out of a fix and then putting it right and then being economical with the truth, as long as it is all put right and no one is hurt, no one is compromised, all ends well. Doing, ' Things Right', can have altogether separate identities and differing paths, but I do understand that the meaning can be blurred and I have used a pretty black and white example.

I find it difficult with people who, in particular, say they are a straight talking guy, either like it or lump it, I find I like the softer approach and try and understand and explain and talk people round to the best position, if we have differing ideas or even ideals, I would like to think we can use them and move forward, using a mix of both.

I also find bluff, straight talking guys very opinionated, which in turn does not lend itself to a conducive way forward, having said that, when needs be, needs must.

In my view it is not tip toeing around a subject, you can hit it head on, but explaining and understanding and being sympathetic, empathetic and listening will go a long way, rather than just speaking your mind.

I will very rarely bandy words with someone who is talking at me, instead of to me.

Moss

I hear that and agree, in fact I think you articulated what I meant to say rather better than me. (in fact I think I did a rather shoddy job at it).

One point I would make though, is that being opinionated and straight talking does not exclude you from showing empathy for the other party, just so long as you explain the rationale for your opinion, after first listening and demonstrating that you truly understand and appreciate the other party's position.

If they then don't like what you have to say, well... you'd hope that they'd have the decency to empathize too!

As an example: In my business I occasionally meet people with over inflated opinions on the values of their own properties. I know many in the industry who will never tackle this subject and will often spend their working lives trying flog a dead horse, or just ignoring it entirely. This approach helps nobody, least of all the seller.

I have found that, after speaking to them and understanding where they are coming from (I am human) it is far better to give them the bad medicine quickly (with the full rationale behind the opinion) so that they can have a more realistic expectation on what is achievable from the market.

Some will listen, some will not, but you can only help the ones that do.

edit apologies I have drifted even further off topic

You say tomato and I say oh shut up!

Nice violent outburst demonstration. Maybe it's time for you to visit the pub.

One point I would make though, is that being opinionated and straight talking does not exclude you from showing empathy for the other party, just so long as you explain the rationale for your opinion, after first listening and demonstrating that you truly understand and appreciate the other party's position.

Exactly.

Some people would find "economy with the truth" to be condescending at times, and also by logic to assume that one is in a superior or better advantaged position to the "truth".

Kat, I have absolutely no idea how you come to this conclusion, I have never heard it expressed in this manner, you have every right to express it, but I think it is so far off the mark, from the position that I see it, I see no point in trying to justify it further.

Moss

You say tomato and I say oh shut up!

Nice violent outburst demonstration. Maybe it's time for you to visit the pub.

No need to psycho-analyse or pigeonhole me Kat.

I say what I like and I like what I say.

Which surely is the antithesis of the subject of this thread.

Back on topic!

Maybe we shroud ourselves too much in political correctness and over analysing meaning that integrity has become alien and any statement must be guarded so that it's meaning can be spun at a later instance to suit the situation.

There's just not enough plain talk and it leads us into situations that progressively deteriorate and require further obsfucation to maintain a position.

A lesson learnt from our peers which they call politics, but which goes against the grain of interpersonal relationships.

Interesting thread, Moss. I must be a thickhead because I find it difficult to discern the difference between the statement that there is a ' A Right Way of Saying Things', and the following one that there is ' A Way of Saying Things Right'. What is all the more confusing is that the cornerstone of effective communication is clarity of meaning.

Good Post Ping,

but I will have to answer it later, but I will answer it.

Good Luck

Moss

Reminds me of the old 'How do you keep a fool in suspense' joke... but I am sure that is not what you intended.

...Was it?

No it wasn't Ping, but I wish I had thought of it like that, I have been a little busy recently and my post in response to QS, was a little rushed, hence a certain amount of criticism, yours needs greater time, but maybe later, before this thread goes totally pear shaped.

Moss

Crikey Kat,

You have been writing a long time, I hope it is worth it.

Moss

Some people would find "economy with the truth" to be condescending at times, and also by logic to assume that one is in a superior or better advantaged position to the "truth".

Kat, I have absolutely no idea how you come to this conclusion, I have never heard it expressed in this manner, you have every right to express it, but I think it is so far off the mark, from the position that I see it, I see no point in trying to justify it further.

Moss

You say tomato and I say oh shut up!

Nice violent outburst demonstration. Maybe it's time for you to visit the pub.

No need to psycho-analyse or pigeonhole me Kat.

I say what I like and I like what I say.

Which surely is the antithesis of the subject of this thread.

Back on topic!

Maybe we shroud ourselves too much in political correctness and over analysing meaning that integrity has become alien and any statement must be guarded so that it's meaning can be spun at a later instance to suit the situation.

There's just not enough plain talk and it leads us into situations that progressively deteriorate and require further obsfucation to maintain a position.

A lesson learnt from our peers which they call politics, but which goes against the grain of interpersonal relationships.

I think I am on the mark, and if you want to call me political by attempting to openly discuss cultural differences, so be it. But, that is your status quo, not mine.

My point with Robski's previous point is not to psychoanalyze or pigeonhole him, but to point out that it was a use of oppositional irony to dismiss and close down my comments, but not really to counter, discuss, or reach an understanding. It is a form of avoidance.

I think that the discussion of irony/sarcasm, ejits and PC-ness as a euphemism are political/cultural discussions.

For example, Brits often state that Americans don't get irony, and that we are idiots. Ironically, it is often used to pigeonhole us.

However, most of what is called social/verbal irony is just a simple oppositional. But, it can also be used to close down, as I stated to Robski above.

Mossfinn brings up the issue of sarcasm and insecurities in his opening title of the thread, with a quote by an American psychoanalyst-type firm in DC. I think it is provocative, because it points to some essential differences between cultures, and I think Moss expected it to be provocative or he wouldn't of mentioned needing a flak jacket. My previous post merely attempts to begin to state what has until now been unstated.

I think both irony/sarcasm and frank or honest speak both have their place, and assigned cultural values. I think very often in British culture, American plain-speaking is held in low or negative value, and British irony/sarcasm and reserve/understatement in high value.

But, these are merely cultural values that are used as a tool to construct or de-construct meaning. I think, as Mossfinn mentioned in his title, they are also social constructions that seek to deal with (cultural) insecurities.

Whereas the British social *de-construction of irony and understatement would have a positive value in a culture of restraint, non-demonstrativeness and the stiff upper lip, American plain-speaking honesty has a higher value as openness, honesty, emotional accessibility. Obviously, when you challenge one with the other there is a cultural clash, because they are inversely related, where the positive qualities of each can be perceived as negative, because they contradict established social constructions.

Therefore, I see this as a cultural issue, the same as I do with the values assigned to "good", "bad", or ejit.

So, in the American sense, I'm just trying to have a discussion about what is obviously stated or implied but not discussed.

*added: de-construction.

Crikey Kat,

You have been writing a long time, I hope it is worth it.

Moss

I was on the telephone. Other priorities in life have a way of interfering.

I say Tomato and you say Solanum lycopersicum is a plant in the Solanaceae or nightshade family, as are its close cousins tobacco, chili peppers, potato, and eggplant. The tomato is native to Central, South, and southern North America from Mexico to Peru. It is a perennial, often grown outdoors in temperate climates as an annual, typically reaching to 1–3 m (3 to 10 ft) in height, with a weak, woody stem that often vines over other plants.

The leaves are 10–25 cm long, pinnate, with 5–9 leaflets, each leaflet up to 8 cm long, with a serrated margin; both the stem and leaves are densely glandular-hairy. The flowers are 1–2 cm across, yellow, with five pointed lobes on the corolla; they are borne in a cyme of 3–12 together. The word tomato derives from a word in the Nahuatl language, tomatl. The specific name, lycopersicum, means "wolf-peach" (compare the related species S. lycocarpum, whose scientific name means "wolf-fruit", common name "wolf-apple").

Quite a pedestal you're putting yourself on there Kat, are you guarding against your insecurities?

There you go. I'm having a discussion, and you're having a slagging match, but call me the fool.

You can only counter by claiming that I'm up on a pedestal, because all you at your disposal are rocks.

I'm having a discussion

Oh dear, and there's me thinking a discussion was a two sided thing..

Robski Today, 2008-02-20 19:20:26

There's just not enough plain talk and it leads us into situations that progressively deteriorate and require further obsfucation to maintain a position.

Is that a rock, or an opinion?

Well, it can only be two-sided when you actually have a discussion to offer.

If you don't, I guess it's easiest to tear down.

Oi! You two...!!!

Right answer me this:

All this talk of pigeon holing.. (No Moss... don't get dirty on me here...)

I wanna know is this:

Pigeon?

Pidgeon?

Pidjin?

I was always sure there was a "d" in there somewhere...

Prrrr... I dunno...

If not get back to it you two.. .

No offense but can't get past Kat's avatar,sure belongs in another thread just can't bear that Bjork waving her arms anymore I want to hit the screen.

It's Pidgin lol.

hit 'esc' instead, and save yourself computer repair expenses.

During a lull in the hostilities, and with a possible ceasefire imminent,

Sapper Robski (first class, pfc, rac and iou with bar) cooks up the squads favorite, Mustard Pigeon Flambe.

At least he told them it was Pigeon...

Is this the right room for an argument?

^Have you got a Utube link to it?

There is a god and Kat is back.Thank you I really did paste a Post-it on the Bjork avatar.yuk!

^Have you got a Utube link to it?

I've told you once.......

Excellent, laughter is the best medicine!

"If you're arguing then I must have paid"

"Not necessarily, I could be arguing in my own time"

At Glastonbury one year they had a marquee with "Rent An Argument" for £1 people could let off steam and they were very busy.

Now I know where they got the idea.