Update: I think I have strayed from the point being argued with this. I want to keep it up since I wrote it and I don't think it's bad, but I realized in the shower this doesn't address what TimToady mentioned. Sorry 'bout that.
If mistakes happen, then the subject has not been effectively communicated. No matter what opinion the communicator may have about their communication.
A little ambiguous, but I get what you're driving at. (I don't think ambiguity is a mistake, but it does hinder effective communication.) As I understand it, you're saying that if a mistake were to happen during a certain communication, then the meaning of that communication is ineffectively conveyed. If that is what you meant, then I disagree, mostly because other aspects of the context can disambiguate the meaning so that the communication is effectively conveyed. I have, on more than one occasion, said a wrong word to refer to a referent, yet the other person I'm talking to a) understands what I meant to say and b) didn't even stop the conversation to make sure. Usually after a few minutes, I realize I didn't say the right word and attempt to correct, yet the other person responds there is no need for me to do so, since they understood exactly what I meant to say, even tho' I didn't say it. I wasn't correct, I was wrong: but the meaning was still effectively conveyed because of the context. Of course, that's just my understanding based upon what I have experienced. I take your two sentences above contradicting what I have experienced, and therefore I'm partial to my experience.

Maybe a few (or many) years after the fact, someone listening in on the communication (without the segment where I attempt to clarify) might not understand what I meant, and then we get audial criticism on the part of the new listener to discern the meaning with whatever vestiges are left of the original context of the communication. But that problem is a different one for me, since I see social, economic, et c. environments as being a part of a certain communication, and without immediate access to that context, the communication is assuredly not as effective. (Yes, I see effectiveness as a gradient.) Anyway, I know I can be wrong, since it's already happened many a time, but I'm just trying to explain why I think I'm right. Hopefully I'm being effective. :-)

In reply to Re^14: PERL as shibboleth and the Perl community by unobe
in thread PERL as shibboleth and the Perl community by merlyn

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post, it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":


  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, details, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, summary, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.