It’s not though. The characterization of “tantrum” is vacuous because it is used to entirely ignore the lack of responsibility for the RECEPTION of their messages. In communication, there is sender and receiver. There is not only sender. When people debate the INTENTION of a message, they are acting not as Speakers for the Speaker but as Receivers debating amongst Receivers. It is illogical to believe one possesses knowledge of intention when one is instead possessing their RECEPTION. Their messages are being received by a wide variety of audiences, including you and the audience of which you are a part. There are numerous audiences. There are also numerous senders. If two different senders state the same words to the same audience, it is not unreasonable nor is it illogical for the same audience to hear the same messages.

 It’s not though. The characterization of “tantrum” is vacuous because it is used to entirely ignore the lack of responsibility for the RECEPTION of their messages.
In communication, there is sender and receiver. There is not only sender.
When people debate the INTENTION of a message, they are acting not as Speakers for the Speaker but as Receivers debating amongst Receivers.
It is illogical to believe one possesses knowledge of intention when one is instead possessing their RECEPTION.
Their messages are being received by a wide variety of audiences, including you and the audience of which you are a part.
There are numerous audiences.
There are also numerous senders.
If two different senders state the same words to the same audience, it is not unreasonable nor is it illogical for the same audience to hear the same messages.

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× 8 = forty eight

Leave a Reply