A common level of understanding (was: Review of the Radio Plus debate themed "Cybercriminalité: sommes-nous bien armés ?" )

From: S Moonesamy <sm+mu_at_elandsys.com>
Date: Fri, 05 Feb 2016 13:15:37 -0800

Hi Mike,
At 09:31 03-02-2016, Jules Mike Giovanni wrote:
>Even how much I know about something, I cannot assume others know
>about it if I want people to participate or understand. A highly
>technical discussion highly filters out who can participate in it by
>a good deal. Keeping a discussion user-friendly by going as far as
>pretending to ignore the technical terms to help future participants
>not feel left out is important in my opinion (someone on this list
>made me understand this through my interactions with him/her). You
>can see that when I was writing the blog post. I have no interest in
>showing off by shoving epic technical words around or even going as
>close as stating the various related RFCs. I put myself on a common
>level of understanding as any reader and guide them through. I end
>up writing a lot and I am not a great writer in any aspect (so
>mistakes/misunderstandings happen) but I try my best :(

I had a conversation with the person in local language.

If anyone is uncomfortable with a discussion, please send an email to
the mailing list or contact Shelly.

It is expected that the subscribers understand that everyone does not
have the same level of experience or level of proficiency in the
topics being discussed. It may happen, usually during a technical
discussion, that some subscribers compete with each other.

Regards,
S. Moonesamy
Received on Fri Feb 05 2016 - 21:15:58 PST