I think one can infer a lot from tone--intelligence, sense of humor, openness, attitude, but live communication is still better for nuances. As a matter of fact, I know it is from captioning--we have to add descriptors a lot, so those who can only read the words get the information they miss from the inflection and pauses and all the subtle indicators we use when a person is speaking. We break sentences and ad "um" and descriptors in an effort to make up for what the words by themselves can't get across. Once again, this is a matter of sentences rather than whole posts, or weeks of posts, but it still matters.

I don't think most of us can write that dispassionately, even when we try.

I agree. But more often than not, is it not this passion that is misinterpreted?

is it not this passion that is misinterpreted?

Which passion?

I still maintain that while it's a flawed process, it's more often than not successful, and lends a great deal to the attraction of an online environment.

Tone?

So five minutes ago. ;)

So five minutes ago. ;)

Let's do Hue next.

I can't possibly understand you or your present emotional level. That requires physical contact.

I think this is really a question of different personalities and how different people interact. Except with close family and friends, I'm usually much better at understanding people, and being understood, through writing. In person, at least until I'm comfortable enough to physically relax around someone, I give off an impression of "scared and somewhat stand-offish." People frequently think I'm nervous. I can't totally control the vocal inflections and physical things that make people think that. In writing, I can make a choice of exactly which words get typed.

I can't remember an instance where people misunderstood my obvious tone. If I didn't get it across, that's my fault. Just because you say your tone is meant as gentle criticism, doesn't mean it is.

To give a clue about tone--I can tell who many posters are without reading their name above their posts. I bet we all can. Each writer has a voice and that voice comes from who they are. However, I can't tell who everyone in every post is, because the written word does not have the scope for individuality that speech does--where you have not only what you have in print, the words, but volume, rhythm, stress, speed, inflection, all that cool stuff.

Where we might devine tone in Tolstoy, Atwood or Rice, internet posters rarely have the time or skill to nuance accurately their intended tone through the laborious and exact placement of words.

I am mentally removing Rice from the list (unless the tone you are seeking is "cacophony"). But: given the number of professional writers and editors on this board (okay, must include the lawyers, too), I would have to say that there's an expectation *here* that posters will at least make an effort at doing just that, especially when they haven't yet had the advantage of face to face meetings.

And none of this addresses the fact that I was today blasted for my "tone" when I specifically outlined exactly what my tone was intended to be from the beginning, in anticipation of the potential for misunderstanding.

Rejecting my overt statement regarding my tone was a pretty darn good example of what I was arguing in the first place - that a few posters are becoming very aggressive, and effectively bullying other posters - newbies, soft-spoken posters, and oldbies alike.

You know what? You can't convey tone by an overt statement indicating that is the tone in which your words should be understood. In fact, this being a highly literate bunch, we're all pretty familiar with unreliable narrators. The tone you claimed you were using, was not even remotely the tone you conveyed.

Style and content are inextricable - it's a false separation, because every word choice will convey some element of tone. Whether you have subtle control of your expression, or you have the ear to hear it is another issue.