We get told, almost every time a certain person, A, does something about a certain group of people, B, that another certain person, C, doesn't like, then that the action of A 'sends out the wrong message'.
Who decided that actions send out messages in the first place? Why is it so easy to send out the wrong message and so difficult to send out the right message? We can certainly guess, from the frequent comments of C on the matter of sending out the wrong message, that their opponent (A) never does anything but send out the wrong message to the wrong people (B). Is it actually possible at all to send out the right message, or just the wrong message to the right people?
Indeed, I'm starting to get mixed messages about the sending out of wrong messages by the wrong people. Why does C get to decide what messages the actions of A is sending out, and why that message being sent out is the wrong message? If A can't send out the right message to the wrong people, can they perhaps send out the wrong message to the right people? Or is it always going to be the wrong message to the wrong people? And, for that matter, who is to say that the actions of C, in sending out the message (to A) about the sending out of the wrong message (from A to B), are not themselves sending out the wrong message to the wrong people (D, E, and F)? Just what sort of wrong message does C think they're sending out (to D, E and F) in sending out the right message (to A) about the sending out of the wrong message (to B), anyway? And what do G, H, I and J have to say about all of this?
Or is it just a case of the media is the wrong mixed message?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Tim, your links stink, you fink!
- John Bangsund's Threepenny Planet
- Broken Biro
- Poetry 24
- Superlative scribbles
- Kirstyn McD!
- Rorrim a tsomla almost a mirror
- More Sterne
- Sterne
- Cam the man from the Dan.
- Too hot to Raaaaaaandallllllll!
- Erin's Excellently Everlasting Effervescements!
- Slammy Infamy
- Hail Paco!
- Baron Blandwagon, purveyor of cyberbunnies, hawker of Roger Corman, and Misruler of the Multiverse
- The Bolta. Aiyeeeeee!!!!!
- Bad Apple Audrey
- The cartoon church
- Sir Martinkus
- A Zemblanian abroad and at home
- A hodge podge of hotzeplotz
- THE SLAMMA!
- Jottlesby's nottings, or should that be Nottlesby's jottings?
- The Snarking of the Hunt
- Jazzy Hands
- David of Metal City
- David the Barista
- The Blogger on the Cast Iron Balcony
- Be an Opinion Dominion Minion!
- Mel...
- ... and Fel
- His brilliant career - from whale sushi to crumbed prawn
- Jo Blogs
- Yet another Tim
- Croucherisms...
- Was two peas, now three peas
- Desciopolous!
- ... Still Life - now with extra rotating cats!
- Erin...
- An Amazingly Awesome Australian Ampersand!
- Blink and you'll miss 'er
- Red in the land of the tigers!
- Wire of Vibe
- Chase him, ladies, he's in the cavalry!
- The Non-palindromical Editrix in Germanium
- Old Sterne
- Gempiricalisations
- TonyT
- The briefs...
- ... and the brieflets
- The Purple Blog
- Blairville, lair of all that is wicked and perfidious
- The enticingly acronymical CSH
- EXTREEEEEEEME WYNTER!
- Mark of California
- Jellyfish
- Silent Speaking
- Lexicon the Mexican
Email: timhtrain - at - yahoo.com.au
Blog Archive
-
▼
2009
(290)
-
▼
March
(22)
- Sudden realisation
- Frequently asked question time in the house
- Ruth Manning-Sanders, revisited
- A community message
- Budgetary announcement
- Rapacious capitalism, coming to loot and plunder you!
- Thing hath sprung!
- Just imagine if...
- I'd like to thank me for inviting myself and all o...
- Biblical lesson of the day
- Comment extremism
- The great books, as I remember them
- Grandeur, delusions of
- Will Type For Nude
- Guest post
- Actions send out the wrong message louder than words
- The Chocolate Review
- Slight annoyance at Distress
- The association, disassociated
- Prone to fafflatus, but still faffable.
- That Big Thing Near Spencer Street Wot They Kick T...
- Teething
-
▼
March
(22)
10 comments:
I have absolutely no idea what you're talking about but it makes me want to say 'right on' and possibly smoke a peace pipe.*
* May be related to consumption of painkillers.
I had no idea either, but it didn't stop me from posting this. When I do posts like this I just let the words flow out in what seems like the right order until it seems like the right time to stop. I've developed a distinctly disdainful approach to 'meaning', as of late...
Um, yeah, I think I may have done that myself recently.
Who says actions send out messages anyway?
When that action is dropping a letter in the mailbox, hitting send on your email ...
What do A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, etc have to say about this?
I dopn't know but if they rearrange themselves nicely they could sned out a nice clear message.
BAD
(no, reshuffle)
HI CAD
(no, move it!)
HI DAG
DIE
FAB
BAH
(we need a T, R, S, L, and can we buy another vowel please?)
People should take this seriously.
Consider my daily dilemma: I always put my left shoe on before my right shoe.
What message am I sending, what godforsaken message?!
And who am I sending it to?!
Whoever it is, it's the wrong message for them.
Maria, that's the spirit. If you're going to send out the wrong mixed message to people, it's worthwhile getting the spelling right.
Umm - it's not the right blog, but it seems ok to send an unrelated, hey 'wrong' message right here. I have just , rather belatedly, read "Which Witch?" ... oh ... and "Not Just a Witch"! Lotsa fun! I think I would like a dragworm as a familiar.
Thanks for the recommendations.
It's widened my knowledge base of all things witchly. I'll be looking for one wading round in wellies.
I was spruiking 'Which Witch' the other day at my monthly science-fiction bookmeet. Great to know you liked it!
Monthly science fiction bookmeet? That is five kinds of awesome.
Post a Comment