"Subsidizing those that choose not to be subject to scrutiny can be something less than comforting."
If the conversation were to end there, what could one reasonably conclude about the information contained therein? Not much. Yet as a concept the foregoing dialog snippet applies to many situations begging for more understanding.
The first statement implies a good feeling is not likely to follow blind giving.
The second, that the information was inadequate up to that point to understand its context?
If the backstory included a rationale for opaqueness, intentional or otherwise, how would the calculus change? The emerging questions express the utility of communications primitives it seems.
"Why do you have to analyze everything?"
"You are on a roll. There is a lot of nuance to the obfuscation class."
"Why do you have to analyze everything?"
"You are on a roll. There is a lot of nuance to the obfuscation class."
© 2011 Buzz Hill
No comments:
Post a Comment