eyemind | first statement } audio; un: archivist

Entry tags:

first statement } audio; un: archivist

[oho, what’s this? a new voice on the network?]

Erm … I suppose it’s customary in a situation like this to introduce myself. [he lightly clears his throat before continuing:] My name is Jonathan - erm, Jon. Sims. [and he really has to bite down on the impulse to add the archivist after that.] I am somewhat new here and have yet to meet many of you. [which is intentional, on jon’s part.] But I - I actually just have a question, seeing as - if I understand the situation correctly - we are all from different places.

[jon hesitates for a moment and takes a deep breath to steady his nerves. public speaking is so much less comfortable than reading statements into a tape recorder.]

Have any of you heard of something called The Vast?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Spoken language does not pose a barrier. Written language is not afforded the same courtesy.

In this case, your point is on the contrary. They knew it was numbers and letters and therefore know it is in a language they recognize. However, despite that, I still didn't consider their illiteracy and I should have. That's my mistake and it won't happen again. You seem very offended, as well, to come out of nowhere and message a specific stranger with no introduction whatsoever in defense of literacy versus verbal understanding. Is that what I'm seeing here?

This is a network designed to facilitate communication. Thus it is scarcely difficult to imagine that anything written here would, largely, be in aid of that selfsame goal even should the letters themselves be unfamiliar. As for the numbers... they are present on the doors of the rooms, here. It would hardly take any great skill to decipher their meaning. Nor to come to recognize them by sight.

Good, good. Then we both agree communication is exactly what this is for and the exact reason I used it. However, I can't help but come to realize you're trying to argue with me in a cycle that neither of us will agree on. You're neither the target of the lesson nor the person to whom was contacting said target. Since you dodged my question, quite expertly I might add, I will consider it a yes instead of opening a cylinder of dirt noodles. But, I'm not an unreasonable man and in most cases the bigger man so I will end that cycle. I am simply trying to help before things become an issue here. If they are or aren't, or if others are or are not illiterate is not something we should debate for them. I offered audio, after all, and so the issues is moot at best.

[On balance, the point about him not being particularly involved in the conversation is a fair point. But that's about the only point he'll concede, even if he's not going to admit to it. Nor for that matter is he going to stop discussing the matter at hand.]

Can someone be said to be truly illiterate if it is merely that they might be accustomed to using a different form of writing?

That depends on your definition of illiterate behaviour.

Define it, then. Since you clearly have one already in mind.

You see, normally I revel in these sort of conversations. I don't revel in your verbal cadence nor your passive aggressive tone in reference to defining a term. Which is important. You seem to have your own issues to which you won't divulge and when I ask, you dodge the question of. Truly, you're not here for a conversation you're here to vent your own issues by my assertion of your behaviour. If you don't like what I've done, I'm certainly sorry to hear you wouldn't err on the side of caution to maintain a level of civility. Illiteracy is a serious issue.

Edited 2021-01-09 05:59 (UTC)

Well, of course it's important.

[If Kankri hadn't liked his previous tone, he's probably going to like this one even less, which is somehow both more smug and halfway to a withering sort of snark that suggests that he thinks what he's saying should have been obvious.]

Which is why I want to be sure we're operating from the same basic set of principles first. After all, how else are we going to come to any sort of equitable discussion?

Mmm... No, I think that my time is better spent speaking to those actually interested in conversation. Not someone with toxic, untagged, issues of aggression. You may contact me when you correct these listed concerns. Tagging withheld, we can't seem to do that here, either.

[There's a pause, and then a blink, for all that it doesn't come across via audio, and when he speaks again he's at least less insufferably smug. Rather, he sounds almost genuinely surprised.]

What, you think this is aggressive?

Why yes as I've said multiple times through your feigned ignorance. If I'm speaking quite honestly I can understand that you wouldn't comprehend the social aspects of my people, but what you're doing but it's making me quite uncomfortable.

And I'm supposed to, what, change who I am simply to spare you some discomfort?

No, but certainly since you've attested that language barrier isn't inconsistent in auditory fashion, you could listen. Unless of course that is, in fact, directly unaligned with your personality, if that's what you meant by this. Then you're free to kindly manage your unwanted aggressions on your own without the kind aid of my guidance.

[There's a brief moment of silence, and then, at length, a sigh.]

I had meant to offer a clarification. Naught more.

[Or at least, that had been his original intent.]

You've made yourself abundantly clear, as have many of the individuals on this ship.

I should certainly hope so.

Oh, no, by far. I'm under the intense understanding of your ship's mob mentality. Good day.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

first statement } audio; un: archivist

no subject

Audio;

Audio;

Audio;

Audio;

Audio;

Audio;

Audio;

Audio;

Audio;

Audio;

Audio;

Audio;

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject