Meeting up vs online discussions
-
Originally posted by browniebaobao:good.. coz i believe many ple dun wana see u.
=x
-
That's why you have a secretary who takes minutes and a chairperson that controls the meeting. I'm assuming a business settingOriginally posted by Eric Cartman:Discussing online ensures that everyone's voice is heard (for group discussions). Everyone posts what they want to say, and it is up to the reader to look through every post made. Whereas in face to face discussions you need to wait for your turn and most often you are only replying to the last person who spoke. This leaves the people with softer voices out of the picture.
Another thing good about online discussions is that you can refer back to previous posts and ensure that people have been consistent in what they have been saying instead of using trickery to confuse. -
Dat time hor, I wun be reminding you NOT to eat chocolates. I will remind you not to eat bak guas, sweets, candies, pork floss, prawn rolls, etc, etc.Originally posted by browniebaobao:ya lor..
nvm, u can remind me again when CNY is near. 
-
i can dun eat those..Originally posted by Bontakun:Dat time hor, I wun be reminding you NOT to eat chocolates. I will remind you not to eat bak guas, sweets, candies, pork floss, prawn rolls, etc, etc.
but i cannot dun eat pineapple tarts.. -
Ok. I remind you NOT TO EAT pineapple tarts.Originally posted by browniebaobao:i can dun eat those..
but i cannot dun eat pineapple tarts.. -
ok, i'll switch off my hps and dun come online then.Originally posted by Bontakun:Ok. I remind you NOT TO EAT pineapple tarts.
ok dun hijack thread le, later TS not happy. -
Right..........Originally posted by browniebaobao:ok, i'll switch off my hps and dun come online then.
ok dun hijack thread le, later TS not happy.
This "hijacking" of the thread is a classic example of a simple communications via internet. What you all can see here is how many "question mark" points are there in this short conversation.
How can I be sure what I convey through (advising not to eat chocolates) is being properly transmitted to her and thus having her accept the comments?
How can she be sure my words are credible enough stating that it is not good to eat much chocolates (in general)? -
eh sai leh, like that also can..Originally posted by Bontakun:Right..........
This "hijacking" of the thread is a classic example of a simple communications via internet. What you all can see here is how many "question mark" points are there in this short conversation.
How can I be sure what I convey through (advising not to eat chocolates) is being properly transmitted to her and thus having her accept the comments?
How can she be sure my words are credible enough stating that it is not good to eat much chocolates (in general)?
i accept your comments bcos i have met u, and treat u as a fren.
ur words are credible enough also i have met u, and know u better in person.
i think that's wat u mean ba? -
yes... in a face to face discussion u can shake her and drill through your words... greater impactOriginally posted by Bontakun:Right..........
This "hijacking" of the thread is a classic example of a simple communications via internet. What you all can see here is how many "question mark" points are there in this short conversation.
How can I be sure what I convey through (advising not to eat chocolates) is being properly transmitted to her and thus having her accept the comments?
How can she be sure my words are credible enough stating that it is not good to eat much chocolates (in general)?
online... tmr morning she'll forget she read your advice here -
Originally posted by browniebaobao:eh sai leh, like that also can..
i accept your comments bcos i have met u, and treat u as a fren.
ur words are credible enough also i have met u, and know u better in person.
i think that's wat u mean ba?
Yes, more or less there. Not only the credibility comes with the original meeting of us before, but also that as a result of knowing me in person, its easier to be more receptive to my comments online or face to face as well.
-
If one doesn't want to listen, in face to face discussions he can ignore what you said and just pretend he didn't hear it. It is up to the speaker to ensure that he speaks loud and attention catching enough for the listener. However on the internet everything is recorded, so if the receiver doesn't pay attention you can always shame him later by pointing him to a previous post.Originally posted by Bontakun:Right..........
This "hijacking" of the thread is a classic example of a simple communications via internet. What you all can see here is how many "question mark" points are there in this short conversation.
How can I be sure what I convey through (advising not to eat chocolates) is being properly transmitted to her and thus having her accept the comments?
How can she be sure my words are credible enough stating that it is not good to eat much chocolates (in general)?
So you want her to eat less chocolates. If she wants to listen then both ways are well and good, but if she doesn't want to listen what can you do even if you are her boyfriend?
Credibility for chocolates being unhealthy. How do you intend to show your credibility in face to face like in a coffeeshop? On the internet you can easily search for websites that show evidence.
Oh yeah abuot the hijacking. If your discussion in real life gets hijacked by a clown or 2 then you will have everyone turn to laugh at him. Here you can always read the posts you want to read. -
A simple meeting gets you to trust that person? I guess your discussions can only stay at telling one another not to eat too much chocolates.Originally posted by Bontakun:
Yes, more or less there. Not only the credibility comes with the original meeting of us before, but also that as a result of knowing me in person, its easier to be more receptive to my comments online or face to face as well. -
I cannot argue with you over the ease of searching for sources via internet. It became such a norm that online shopping and eBay is common among us compared to going to NTUC or shopping mall.Originally posted by Eric Cartman:If one doesn't want to listen, in face to face discussions he can ignore what you said and just pretend he didn't hear it. It is up to the speaker to ensure that he speaks loud and attention catching enough for the listener. However on the internet everything is recorded, so if the receiver doesn't pay attention you can always shame him later by pointing him to a previous post.
So you want her to eat less chocolates. If she wants to listen then both ways are well and good, but if she doesn't want to listen what can you do even if you are her boyfriend?
Credibility for chocolates being unhealthy. How do you intend to show your credibility in face to face like in a coffeeshop? On the internet you can easily search for websites that show evidence.
Depending on what the discussion is about, if your main purpose is to let people know what is your view, then its their loss if they do not hear it. However if your purpose is to show superiority in your arguements, I am pretty sure remaining in the internet will do, for no one will bother.
Why bother to shame the person? What is being acheived by that?
If she do not want to listen, its her choice. I have no control over her life. She make the decision to listen or no, she has to accept it and hold responsible for it. -
I do not understand your stance at zooming in on a portion of a topic while neglecting the whole picture at hand. This is your decision. You hold responsible for it. I said my piece. Bless you.Originally posted by Eric Cartman:A simple meeting gets you to trust that person? I guess your discussions can only stay at telling one another not to eat too much chocolates. -
"Depending on what the discussion is about, if your main purpose is to let people know what is your view, then its their loss if they do not hear it. However if your purpose is to show superiority in your arguements, I am pretty sure remaining in the internet will do, for no one will bother."Originally posted by Bontakun:I cannot argue with you over the ease of searching for sources via internet. It became such a norm that online shopping and eBay is common among us compared to going to NTUC or shopping mall.
Depending on what the discussion is about, if your main purpose is to let people know what is your view, then its their loss if they do not hear it. However if your purpose is to show superiority in your arguements, I am pretty sure remaining in the internet will do, for no one will bother.
Why bother to shame the person? What is being acheived by that?
If she do not want to listen, its her choice. I have no control over her life. She make the decision to listen or no, she has to accept it and hold responsible for it.
It is like that in both the internet and in real life.
"Why bother to shame the person? What is being acheived by that?"
Makes the person pay more attention to your posts instead of speaking out of his ass.
"If she do not want to listen, its her choice. I have no control over her life. She make the decision to listen or no, she has to accept it and hold responsible for it."
It's the same on both the internet and in real life. -
It is due to people like you who cannot understand simple logic that I prefer to use a forum. What is the whole picture at hand? The whole picture means meeting up = credibility?Originally posted by Bontakun:I do not understand your stance at zooming in on a portion of a topic while neglecting the whole picture at hand. This is your decision. You hold responsible for it. I said my piece. Bless you.
"Yes, more or less there. Not only the credibility comes with the original meeting of us before, but also that as a result of knowing me in person, its easier to be more receptive to my comments online or face to face as well."
Knowing you in person? How well does she know you, has she lived with you? Does she know all your pasts? Have you hidden anything from her? Do you depend on the points raised or whether you like the person? -
This whole "knowing him well in person so I trust him" is the main cause of superstitions like chinese folk practices that have no basis in both buddhism and taoism. It is the main perpetuator of ignorance and also of conmen. It is not the way of the truth seekers.