let me put it again in maybe even stronger words then: who are you to suggest anybody should comply with anybody's opinion here? Sorry to disappoint you here, I won't agree on anything like that. It's entirely you who's making up that BS. [edit] And no, my subsentence "I know i'm absolutely in line with woody here" was strictly meant regarding the bonmot about defamations and how to cope with them which I quoted imediately before that very sentence, implying that it's what I (and also woody) think is the right way to handle trolling and defamations. I honestly can't think how anybody could disassemble my few sentences in such a weird manner and put every subsentence into relation to some post of 2 pages back or even in another thread. Is that how you phrase your statements? I try to phrase mine in a sense of continuity, where each sentence is somehow related to the previous one more likely than to random other stuff. /j
Sechs goldene Regeln 1. Gute Kommunikation bedient sich einer bildhaften Sprache mit emotional überzeugenden Bildern. 2. Sie ist selbstredend glaubwürdig. 3. Sie verfällt nicht in den Reflex, die Überbringer unangenehmer Botschaften zu verunglimpfen. 4. Sie versucht auch nicht abzuwiegeln, etwa unter dem Verweis auf verfahrenstechnische Schweigepflichten, die jede Auskunft verböten. 5. Sie unterstellt der Gegenseite keine unlauteren Motive. 6. In brenzligen Situationen lässt sie die Logik ihrer Argumente zugunsten der Situationspsychologie zurücktreten.