On Jan 4, 2008 1:45 AM, Ray Saintonge <saintonge(a)telus.net> wrote:
One thing to keep in mind is that we have a lot of
edgy people around
here who are willing to read any statement in its worst light.
Partly because there are plenty of people who would mean that worst
light, however. It's hard to tell intention at the best of times;
informal written communication is really bad at conveying it.
The line between threat, warning and friendly advice
is often in the eye of the
beholder. Wording that seems benign to the person giving the warning
can too easily seem like intimidation to the person being warned. If it
comes in the middle of an unrelated dispute it only exacerbates the
problem.
It's probably not a good idea to issue 'friendly warnings' or
'friendly advice' about what trouble someone could get in from their
employers if you are in a dispute with them. It's a common enough
threat pattern that a sensible person should avoid it even if it's not
what they mean.
It also makes things worse when the warning is rooted
in a
misconception of the law or a too broad reading of the law.
Indeed. Especially common when someone actually wants to give the
other party a scare or a caution.
People are also very good at post hoc rationalization of their
actions; "I only meant to give a friendly warning", etc. If you sent
someone such a warning in the middle of a dispute, you probably did
intend to influence their behavior to your benefit.
-Matt