Justin Schwartz wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >Yes, that goes without saying. The fact that you've said it not once, but
> >twice, leads me to believe that you're being unwittingly condescending.
> >
>
> Not intentionally. Sorry if it came across that way.
>
Having been gone a little over 24 hours I'm a couple hundred posts behind and I'm not going to try to catch up, and hence I haven't the slightest idea whose post Justin is responding to here, and the following remarks are thus wholly abstract.
I do wish posters would stop (as a general rule) ascribing either conscious or unconscious motives to the posts of others. It's impossible not to slip into doing so once or twice a week if one posts often -- but it is not necessary to keep it up. Pound named one sequence of Cantos, _Section: Rock Drill_; they contained some beautiful poetry and some obscene content, but on the whole arguments that resemble a rock drill are not very palatable, _even when I agree with them_.
Who cares if someone is being condescending, wittingly or unwittingly. Respond to the content. It is impossible to control tone consistently, or even usually, in e-mail, and attacks on tone are futile.
Carrol