Question about Devera

Wed Mar 5 12:54:33 PST 2003

Inline responses, no deeper meaning.

> At 03:03 PM 3/5/2003 -0500, Warlord wrote:
> >
> >I didn't say common, nor did I imply that it was not important; merely
> >secondary.
> >
> >If the correct meaning gets to the recipient of the communication, then
> >does the delivery method really matter ?
> Interesting question, and worth a moment to look at.
> If I tell you that I'll meet you at Joe's Coffee Shop at 8pm, and 
> I do not show up until 9pm, I am telling you something: I am saying
> that my time is more important than yours.  I am saying that I am
> more important that you.  

This would be awfully presumptuous of me, though not necessarily
incorrect, and full of assumptions with no basis, unless, for example,
you are chronically late, in which case there is no "meaning" just
time for extra coffee.  You, knowing that I like coffee, deliberately
gave me this extra time, and now I owe you for the additional courtesy.
The meaning, while obviously fluid, is still clear when transmitted.
It seems to me that you are attibuting circumstances that *follow* the
communication to the communication itself.  I believe this to not be
the same argument, though I'd be willing to discuss it over coffee.

> This is why, should that happen, I would rush to explain why the 
> delay was unavoidable, or I would apologize for making you wait, or 
> both.  The action sends a message.  If the message was unintended,
> it ought to be corrected.

Would this not fall under additional, but separate, communication,
with a related, but different meaning ?

> If I require you to go through an unusual amount of work to decipher a 
> message that could have been delivered in a straight-forward and simple 
> manner, I am saying exactly the same thing as if I had arrived at our 
> appointment an hour late.

Thus I quoth Brust, "Be assured that, as I discover more, I will conceal
it from you as entertainingly as possible."

Unusual amount of work, again makes assumptions that the process is not
desirable; nevertheless, the *meaning* hasn't changed, merely the delivery.
If we comtinue to meet for coffee, instead of me meeting MJ for beer
and handcuffs, then it would be a valid assumption on your part that the
method of delivery in your communciation was acceptable. 


P.S. MJ - Just because I meet him for coffee doesn't mean that 
	"ring around the wrists" is out of the question.