You know what? You can't convey tone by an overt statement indicating that is the tone in which your words should be understood.

Heh heh - I actually like this!

You can't explain what you mean by explaining what you meant!

And of course, the content of the words have already been dismissed, as have the specific points raised.

SO what remains is an ambiguous, off-topic discussion regarding the debated notion of 'Tone', and how it can be used as justification for dismissing the points raised by a newbie, whence at the same time others argue that it is much harder, if not impossible, for oldbies to infer tone from a newbie so therefore it must be incombent upon a newbie to accurately convey their tone - but they can't do so by actually prefacing a post with an explanation of the tone intended, but rather must immediately be up to the level of the professional writers (and lawyers) on this board who have extensive practice and experience doing just such a thing!

Now that that's simplified, I am sure I can be more clear in the future.../snark

I'm just saying that (and FWIW I've never seen you do this) it might be best to take a deep breath before we rip someone a new asshole for what they may have intended to be a perfectly benign post.

I'm assuming the brackets go before the "ripping the new asshole" part, and not that you've never seen me take a deep breath first.

I'm assuming this because I have some knowledge of you through extended interaction.

If I stripped that subtext out, I'd be left with a sentence that'd make me angry.

Which makes me think it's not a detoning-is-good thing, is it? It's an "benefit of the doubt" thing.

If I post 'I'm sorry'. Is it sincere? Is it sarcastic? Is it I'm-sorry-you're-upset-but-I-still-think-I'm-right?. Is it a well-meaning but essentially empty social pro forma?

But most people won't just post "I'm sorry" when they mean one of those other things. I think that most people, when they do mean "I'm sorry you're upset but I still think I'm right" and want to convey that, will follow up "I'm sorry" with "but here's some more reasons why I'm right." A sarcastic "I'm sorry" will generally have some sort of indication of sarcasm, if it isn't implied in the context of the conversation, because who would want their sarcastic "I'm sorry" to have a chance of being read as sincere? I think that most people don't simply post the exact words they would say in a spoken conversation, they compose their thoughts as is appropriate to the medium. Sometimes there are misunderstandings, sure, but I can think of very few instances when it's seemed that someone was totally off in either the tone they conveyed or the tone they read in someone else's post.

The tone you claimed you were using, was not even remotely the tone you conveyed.

Be fair, David. It's the tone you inferred from his posts. I, who have met Rafmun, and connie, who has not, did not infer this.

(edited to remove 'not' which completely changes my meaning.)

I think though that there is a valid point here that has beene exaggerated. It would be incorrect to say there is no tone, or not significant tone in on-line communications. It would be quite correct to say that on-line tone is both harder to convey and to read accurately.

I'm not sure whether I agree or disagree with this. I think it fair to say that due to the subtleties of on-line tone, most readers are effectively 'tone-deaf'. We are talking about knowing what another person is trying to convey (invoke) with their words. This is not always a target that can be hit. There is no telling what a person takes away from a well written passage of text, but you are fooling yourself if you think everyone will take the same thing.

but rather must immediately be up to the level of the professional writers (and lawyers) on this board who have extensive practice and experience doing just such a thing

Dude, for my sake, I found your writing abilities to be quite up to conveying clear thought.

For my own mental picture, what is the appropriate pronoun for you?

I agree with David, and reiterate that tone is in the eye of the beholder, and should be in control of the poster. Many, many people have said that Rafmun's tone was not the same that he claimed it to be.

Dear everyone,

Everything I write is meant to be really nice and respectful of everything. Also: I am dispassionate. Cheers.

I hope this clears up any future problems concerning tone in my posts, at least.

Rafmun, I've just read the last 400 posts all in one gulp. At least 300 of them were about your posts.

I think you can stop claiming that your points have been "dismissed" now.

Intentional or not, you are coming across as incredibly patronizing and arrogant. Simply saying "I'm not being patronizing" doesn't change that.

I'm assuming the brackets go before the "ripping the new asshole" part, and not that you've never seen me take a deep breath first.

I'm assuming this because I have some knowledge of you through extended interaction.

If I stripped that subtext out, I'd be left with a sentence that'd make me angry.

Which makes me think it's not a detoning-is-good thing, is it? It's an "benefit of the doubt" thing.

Ooops. Yes, misplaced parenthesis. And, yes, 'benefit of the doubt' and 'asking for clarification' instead of just assuming that your interpretation of tone is correct and asking upon it.

But I'd like to think that you'd have given the benefit of this particular doubt to a new poster as well.

Shakes head