@Sue. You raise an interesting point. I know from my work in IT that, having had to mediate on a number of occasions, it's very easy for comments made in electronic communications, or the tone of them, to be misinterpreted (sometimes a quick phone call resolves a week's worth of emails). I might think the "*unt" is Richard attempting to be amusing (which I did), you and others interpret him as being rude (which appears to be the case), others might not understand it at all, and we might all put it in the same or different context (for example, I'd relate is back to the slip of the tongue on the Today programme). I did some brief post grad research as part of a telecommunications/networks course in the early 1990s into the use of videoconferencing. Nearly all the users of it said meeting the other attendees at the start of a project was useful to understand their style, mannerism, body language etc and perhaps get to know people over a coffee, glass of wine, etc. So anyone who's been in an IT management meeting with me would know if someone says something completely unrealistic I might look out of the windows and go "oink flap" ... not suggesting a meetup, I don't want news of a fracas in Putney on the front pages, just suggesting some consideration of how comments might have been intended to be, or how they could be, interpreted :-)
Michael Ixer ● 2791d