Quote:
Originally Posted by Uisge Beatha
The definitions of pertinent terms "talent" and "understatement" make clear the concept of aptitude for representing as being less than actual. Adult thinking processes this simple statement and registers the fact tw goes well beyond simply not wearing emotions on his sleeve.
|
And I will tell you 'quite honestly' (an expression only used because so many are looking for implied meanings) that I have no idea what that means. The previous sentence had maybe five+ different meanings to me.
A talent for understatement per your definition is, for example, what I saw in some great leaders who said so much with so few words. It is also how some might say "you are lying to me" in a poltically correct manner. Or it implies one does not grasp the concepts and says, "I want you to stop talking to me". Or it says one has this phenomenal grasp of the concept well beyond what all others have observed.
In each case the exact definitions of 'talent' and 'understatement' apply. In each of four cases, those same definitions resulted in completely different conclusions - if implication is an acceptable in analyzing communication.
Adult thinking is why adults ask for clarification instead of jumping to assumptions about insult. Even in politics, we have so many children pretending to be leaders. Some so childish as to jump to war over simple misinterpretation. History is full of adults who harmed their own people only because an implication was only assumed.
I am reminded of Admiral Halsey during the battle of Leyete Gulf. He received a message. Words used to better encrypt messages were accidently included in his message. His message started something like "The world asks". An exhausted Halsey immediately assumed he was being insulted by his superior. He applied his own biases and saw an implied criticism where none existed and none was clearly intended. An exhausted Halsey used personal bias to assume facts not in that message.
So I again am completely confused why your explanation remains vague. Again, I am not playing games. Your post is a perfect example of what I am saying. I still don't know what your post intended to say. It requires me to make assumptions. It is not politically incorrect - which means blunt and honest. Necesary assumptions would only come from biases. I don't entertain my biases AND when I insult, it will be clearly so - never implied.
I am doing what adults do and children sometimes do not. I am asking - and yes there is nothing even implied here - I am asking what you meant because it is not clear. I am asking this obviously because I still don't know what you meant - as even demosntrated by four interpretations.
Notice this post is long because I am being blunt clear. Nothing should be implied. Political correctness is completely unacceptable and even leads to implication which adults need not do. And your post is still easily interpreted more than four ways. I don't know how I can make this any clearer. However, this is the same mindset that also saw justification in the Kuwait Liberation (long before Saddam even invaded) and saw no indications of WMDs in 2002. Notice why? I don't accept implication as I also do not post implication. The question is exactly as posted. What do you mean?