Dr E D F Williams wrote: > > You answered without thinking Keith. I see now why most people on this list > add funny faces to their messages to be sure they are not misunderstood.
I'm a pretty literal sort of reader. I speak (write) with the intent to have others understand my meaning as clearly as possible. I sort of expect others to do the same. Ambiguity can creep in quickly when one starts being mildly sarcastic or is not watchful of his being obtuse. It happens too easily! When there's only visual text on a screen to get all nuances of one's communication intent across, one must resort to capitals or "emoticons" or some such thing, to express all the myriad emotions involved. So, yes, unless one interjects a <smile> or <grin> or one of the ubiquitous symbols like :^), there's no way to tell if something is said "tongue in cheek" or in jest. Sorry I misunderstood... > Now I'll explain in plain English: > > This photographer is great. I love his pictures. I am delighted he got the > award. I love 6 x 6 and have used it for forty years. I think Hasselblad is > good, I had one for years, but do think there are better 6 x 6 cameras. > > I was being facetious. Thank you. > If you think back a bit you'll remember the long > drawn out discussions about rules and format we had some months ago. Yes? Yes. > One of us wrote dozens of messages about why 6 x 6 was a waste of film. > Others wrote about rules ... ad nauseam. People were rude to each other. I recall that quite clearly, and ended up tossing most of the repeat messages after the first hundred or so. > And here we have a man who takes his pictures with the subjects slap in > the middle of the square frame, equal margins all round, and they look > wonderful! > > Got it? Oh yes, I got it! While I tend to offset my main subject in most of my photo compositions, and do generally find it more pleasing, one CAN get away with central subject composition, as that to which this photographer's photos attest! > Best, > > Don > > But I'll be buggered before I add those stupid little things to my posts. > > D I do understand, but if one doesn't provide for some way of expressing the richness and nuances of communication, they must be prepared to field the questions from those literal readers who misunderstand, like me! You did, and I thank you for it. I'll try to be more discerning and read between the lines next time. <smile> keith whaley
