Are YOU surrounded by silence? How do you know if it is a good thing? Is it a good silence, the solitary imagined kind, or another variety?
Is silence not often thought to be awkward when circumstances result in extended periods of nothing ? It is not-at-all surprising that when difficult issues arise, an enigmatic silence ensues which only allows problems to fester. At Incoming Bytes, reflecting on the discomfort generated by inappropriate, protracted or untimely silence, --an innocuous temptation to offer a solution is strong.
Perhaps in the future, if one is offended strongly by actions, bad manners, rants, statements or comments made by individuals in any form, an official protocol could prove handy. It may be a helpful and reasonable public policy to bravely email them directly and identify the offensive material, changing their minds by gentle persuasion, offering weird jokes, or simply inferring they are not as bright as they could be. To sign off with one's real name is optional. After all, what else is the Internet for?
It does seem inherently logical that it could be helpful to address individuals directly instead of allowing what are, in fact, negative, poor, people-handling skills, to take over, --for instance, screaming loudly down the street whilst throwing eggs at them. Such spontaneous activities may occur long before anyone even realizes they are not yet fully clothed in the morning, thereby offering a serious and even unbecoming spectacle to the casual observer out in the street.
This is unacceptable and offensive in itself. People in this world are generally good people; they may all rant, scream, and express anger, but they are human beings without exception, and should be encouraged to retain dignity of their persons whilst watching serious, naked communicators tossing eggs at passers-by.
May I suggest the following process ?
Should someone comment negatively or do something inadvertently that I find offensive, I shall immediately email them personally and express my concerns, using fewer than three foul invectives and fewer than eight pages of text.
If the reply I receive several days later includes little but denial, an arcuate avoidance of responsibility, includes any more than three foul invectives, or does not otherwise resolve the issue, a follow-up email shall be more than justified. The reader will recall that time is of the essence.
With today’s helpful technology, it becomes a point of personal pride to have all emails between dedicated individuals answered quickly and specifically, rather than operating within a vague, quasi-organized schedule, particularly while using a cumbersome, annoying, very snail-like postal service or the unprofessional 'new spelling' of texting.
The occasional exception may be allowed if one’s satellite service is failed due to NASA space-junk impact, visits from loving mothers-in-law interfere with good governance, or inclement weather is experienced in the duration.
To contact someone directly by email is inherently more fair and honest, and will help avoid the perception of an arbitrary application of silence, and thus remain within the bounds of the fine art of communication .
Ask yourself the question once again, do you prefer silence, or are you just choosing silence by default, -perhaps without intent ? How many fits of silence are the result of the inability to think caused by misplaced anger and a failed diet, particularly the lack of eggs?
To clear the air is a good thing in the spirit of peace, friendship and cooperation. In the old days, silence was golden, and it can still be a good thing if you wish to observe it religiously as such.
In spite of these recent revelations and advances in technology, then, I am proud to add each of you, singularly and collectively, to my email address book.
How to really know if silence is a good thing? Try not opening your email, and see.
That's my story and I'm sticking to it.