[grzm]

It may be ridiculous, but language use can affect how it's interpreted. And given on a forum like this the text is the only channel of information. It's communication bereft of body language and intonation, which makes it even more of a challenge. For example, do you discern a difference between the following?

> "Do they not get car sick from reading books while driving?"

> "Do they get car sick from reading books while driving?"

If so, what is it? Why would a person choose one over the other?

I hope this is coming across as useful. How communication is understood on the web is interesting to me, and understanding how to communicate effectively means also learning how we come across and how that squares with what we intend, and I fear I may not be doing a good job here. Without a response from the people who actually down voted, all we can do is try to look at how people might interpret what was written.

[Fogest]

In my opinion they both should have the same reaction. If someone asked me that in person or by text I see no reason why I'd be upset by that. It's a simple question and nothing else I said in the comment would suggest I was trying to be rude, so why take it that way? Why be offended when you don't need to be. Seems a bit silly to me.

[grzm]

I'll sign off after this. Your response puts everything on the reader rather than the writer. Yes, the reader should do as you say, but the writer also needs to take into account how the reader could interpret what's been written, not just how you think they should, and try to write in such a way as to minimize misunderstanding. Of course, all of this assumes that karma matters, the writer cares enough to put in the effort (and it's not always worth it), and that even the best crafted message will be read by every reader as good.

[hueving]

Is English not your first language?

It's pretty clear that Fogest was asking if the kids get carsick and there was no implication that anyone was lying.

[robertlagrant]

Yeah, there was absolutely nothing wrong - the writer had already done what could be reasonably be expected, and the remainder is now for the reader to not mess up their interpretation of a very simple question.

[grzm]

'Fogest was down voted (or so I assume, given 'bashinator's comment). 'bashinator commented "Dunno why you're being downvoted". I speculated as to why. You apparently disagree with the reasons I proposed, which is fine. Do you have an alternative explanation? In the case the down voting was irrational or unreasonable, something caused them to choose to down vote the comment. What was it?

In my experience, questions posed as 'Fogest did ("Do they not get car sick...?") or you did ("Is English not your first language?") carry with them additional information. The neutral, default versions of these are "Do they get carsick?" and "Is English your first language?"

To me, 'Fogest's comment reads differently with only that change:

> Do they get car sick from reading books while driving? I remember as a kid on long car trips I would try and read but I'd always feel sick from it, however I was fine watching movies on a portable DVD player.

Another example is your choosing to interpret "not wholly accurate" as an "implication that [someone] was lying". If I'm misunderstanding where you got that, please do let me know, as it's not my intent to misrepresent you. What I meant by that was the implication that 'soccerdave had left out relevant information, that their kids get sick when they read in the car. As you read it as you did, is it my fault for how I phrased it? Yours for how you interpreted it? I certainly didn't use the word "lying" and "not wholly accurate" is not equivalent to "lying" Both of ours?

I'm purposefully not answering your question whether English is my first language as it's mostly irrelevant. There are people who are able to express themselves in written form in a foreign tongue much better than the vast majority of native speakers (Vladimir Nabokov and Joseph Conrad come to mind), and plenty of native speakers who aren't aware of how they come across or take particular care when they write. And English in one area is not the same as English in others. (Water fountain or bubbler? Soda? Pop? Coke?)

This is getting very far off from the original comment. I often hesitate to chime in when someone comments some variant of "I don't know why you were down voted". I think it's useful to explore possible reasons as it provides an opportunity to look at how we may come across, particularly to those who disagree with us. That said, it's a difficult place to comment because it's almost by definition a place where there's at best a misunderstanding and at worst trolling or otherwise uncharitable interpretations occurring.

Whether or not someone cares about this is another thing. People may not think that it's worth taking the time to think about or that people should always interpret what's being written in the best light possible. For constructive conversation I think this is crucial. At the same time, I think it's important to understand and take into account the context of where it's being said when commenting on an internet forum stripped of every nuance except the words themselves (perhaps tempered by the reputation of the commenter). Regardless of whether they should, not everyone is going interpret comments in a neutral way, giving the commenter the benefit of the doubt. If I want to be be effective and constructive (and avoid down votes, as that's often used as a proxy for effective and constructive), I think I should take these into account and take care in how I express myself in comments. (Thinking about it, one could posit it's an application of Postel's law to human communication.)

This is the last I'm going to comment on this here, as I don't think I've added anything that wasn't already in the thread, and it's not clear to me that your comment was made in the interest of honest, constructive conversation and giving me the benefit of the doubt.