Excuse me, Arch, let me stand on that there box a moment.
We humans listen to what we want to hear rather than what was said. We say what we mean but may not mean what we say depending on the listener. And we are likely, proportionate to our emotional ownership of the subject at the moment, to use more intense and subjective words/phrases than we might later on after reflection or considering listener reaction. Most married couples serve as a classic example.
The reactions of listeners/readers test our communications. They tell us what was heard as opposed to what was meant. And therein lies the value of discussion since it clarifies positions and intent. It helps to expose the environment and values of where each position is based.
Supposedly the English language is specific enough to precisely communicate. But few have achieved that linguistic expertise and those that have must explain themselves to those that haven't. Kilpatric keeps trying but until he reaches down to my level he's using language pleasing to him and uninformative to me .
So, in reality we find a measured, tempered, respectful approach to communicating to be the most effective for the give and take needed to mutually define our words and reach understanding. Frequently there isn't the time, opportunity, nor mood for that. And, so, we have misunderstandings, disagreements, and even fights.
With this newsgroup time and opportunity are somewhat unlimited due to the medium. That leaves mood and, I'll add, self-control as variables. My observation is that this group, as a whole, does an excellent job dealing with these variables.
TomNie