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

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

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

Sometimes you can and sometimes you can't. If I say to someone, "I don't mean this to sound confrontational but I think you're an asshole," that doesn't mean I'm not being confrontational. I'm being pretty confrontational. I'm just doing it in a passive-agressive manner.

Also, I heart Matt. What he said. And hey, Matt, do you know what that song was with the chick singing after Buffy sent Angle to hell? </old times' sake>

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

I kind of like being called 'muffin'. But that's a religious god complex thing..... long story.

Anyway, my wife calls me 'him' a lot. She speak the english good. ;)

OK, muffin it is.

tone is in the eye of the beholder, and should be in control of the poster.

Wait a sec, Shawn, are you saying that the poster is responsible for how other people react to the post?

Because it's amazing how often I'm surprised at how completely differently I read a post than do others. And I'm also very surprised by the many and different things people are offended by.

Unless someone is deliberately being insulting, there is just so much room for interpretation.