🚀 go-pugleaf

George Bray comments:
> Recent discussions about the effectiveness of communication by email 
> or real-time telephone conversations have argued that the textual media 
> is inferior.

I missed the earlier discussions, so maybe this has already been
thrashed out, but I have to say that I can't agree.  For me, text
(e-mail or regular mail) is a much better medium for the communication
of complex ideas (i.e.  more complex than "can we meet at 3.30?").  The
reasons are obvious (to me anyway):  text demands that you spend time
composing the communication, so you have time to think the issue through,
change your mind, retract hasty statements, review etc etc BEFORE you
send.  None of this is possible with real-time telephone conversation,
plus with text you can't be interrupted and lose your train of thought.

> Today, VoiceMail is like a store-and-forward telephone answering
> machine.  The benefits of vocal cues and inflection are available 
> on a read-it-when-you-want basis.

VoiceMail sounds like a dud to me - well ok, I'll accept that it has a
place, but hopefully not as a replacement for text mail.  If I were
submitting this article by VoiceMail, it would have taken me, so far,
about ten minutes consisting mostly of long silences while I thought
about what I was going to say.  Of course, I could have prepared it as
text, then read it over the phone, but why read something out loud over
the phone when you can send the text?

Also, in my experience, people often lose those beneficial vocal cues 
and inflections when reading out loud.

Last but not least, how are you going to incorporate my speech into that
report you are preparing for the boss? I guess you'll have to transcribe 
it!

Steve Thomas