![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
"This is not a personal attack nor is it a tantrum or offensive I am just responding to your post."
I always find it rather interesting when people have written a response that requires a disclaimed like the one above (stolen off http://www.groups.yahoo.com/rikud). The rest of the email did indeed sound rather like either an attack or a tantrum, even though I agreed very much with what the author was saying, for the most part. So why didn't the author put this disclaimer at the beginning of his post rather than as the very last sentence? The former arrangement prepares the reader to read somethign that will sound, to their intuitively added intonation, like an angry response. However the latter allows the reader to read the whole thing, and only then realize that they were probably using the wrong intonation. At least to me, it suggests that the writer rather wanted to be at least a bit ticked off with the post to which he was responsing, and realized that that wouldn't be polite or socially correct (especially since this is a listserve where a Lot of the people do know eachother offline: the world of heavily involved Israeli Dancers is not so large as all that.), and so he got his frustration out and only then said that he wasn't upset. I'd call anything where you have to say that you're not upset an expression of those sorts of feelings, and however you try to mask them (in this case, as in many, very obviously), that doesn't change that fact.
I always find it rather interesting when people have written a response that requires a disclaimed like the one above (stolen off http://www.groups.yahoo.com/rikud). The rest of the email did indeed sound rather like either an attack or a tantrum, even though I agreed very much with what the author was saying, for the most part. So why didn't the author put this disclaimer at the beginning of his post rather than as the very last sentence? The former arrangement prepares the reader to read somethign that will sound, to their intuitively added intonation, like an angry response. However the latter allows the reader to read the whole thing, and only then realize that they were probably using the wrong intonation. At least to me, it suggests that the writer rather wanted to be at least a bit ticked off with the post to which he was responsing, and realized that that wouldn't be polite or socially correct (especially since this is a listserve where a Lot of the people do know eachother offline: the world of heavily involved Israeli Dancers is not so large as all that.), and so he got his frustration out and only then said that he wasn't upset. I'd call anything where you have to say that you're not upset an expression of those sorts of feelings, and however you try to mask them (in this case, as in many, very obviously), that doesn't change that fact.