General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: So why exactly is "tone" or "approach" more important than actual issues that affect us all? [View all]Violet_Crumble
(35,977 posts)I've copped some of them over time and they don't annoy me, as I just respond in kind. What I'm talking about is abusive behaviour, the sort where the one doing it refuses to acknowledge that they've been abusive, but then points to the slightest thing from others and claims it's abusive.
I don't understand this 'tone' thing. When it comes to tone, I prefer to work within the diatonic scale, and stuff anyone who tells me I'm tone deaf. But because emails and posts on forums like this don't have the luxury of hearing a voice to hear the tone, it's pure guesswork when it comes to what tone someone's using. It's a whole different story when it comes to spotting whether a post or email is abusive and nasty, though, and I've seen a lot of those, and some of yr posts are right in there.
So, I guess my question is who first started talking about 'tone' when it comes to the latest flamewars? Because it seems to be a word used to replace 'nasty and hostile posts', that's all....