I have frequently observed otherwise sober and rational online discussions dissolve into abusive arguments because comments that were meant to be conveyed with a light kidding smile were instead interpreted as rude, angry, or condescending. Sarcasm is notoriously difficult to get across online. Perhaps part of the problem is that online discussion boards tend to be so rough-and-tumble that people tend to read comments as attacks -- slaps as opposed to pats.

Until that changes -- and I see no reason why it will -- it may behoove us all to be a bit more blatant in our emoting. That may mean more exclamation points (please, no more than three at a time, and no more than one instance per paragraph), more emoticons, and more prefaces to comments. Especially when it comes to political discussion, emoting may be the difference between a healthy exchange and an all-out flame-war. After all, most of us political types tend to be snooty bastards!

To those who complain that more exclamation points and emoticons and explanations are hallmarks of bad writing, I say: you are absolutely correct. This isn't about good writing, this is about good communication. Good writing is (in many ways) objectively so, while good communication depends on an understanding of one's audience. In that vein, text messaging and informal emails simply should not be held to the same level as literature or journalism. There does not need to be poetry in that humble prose. Heck, I think it would be a huge achievement just to get people to spell things out rather than adopt the juvenile "C U L8R" style that always rankles me. I'll trade that for more exclamation points any day.

Good points, I agree,

However, I suggest that there is a different standard for a discussion board, or an IM discussion, than for e-mail.

E-mail, to me, falls somewhere between snail mail and those communication forms. And the nature of the communication varies considerably depending on the nature of that exchange.

Personally, I tend to be pretty careful in what I include in an e-mail to anyone other than a close acquaintance, and the medium actually is little different from regular mail, other than having the advantage of time.

I do not see any inherent reason why e-mail messages are any more in need of more expressions of emotion than is snail mail.

I agree in part, but the point of the book is to make clear what a lot of people seem to overlook: there are different uses for e-mail. It's funny to me that people develop e-mail writing styles that they apply to all types of e-mail communication. Just as with snail mail, there is business writing and personal writing, and a few things in between. This is what the book is about. And an e-mail message is different than a letter to a friend or loved one -- unless it's being used as such. What I mean is, I have one writing style for friends I e-mail with daily, another for those I e-mail with weekly, and yet another for friends who live far away to whom I sent long, letter-like e-mails every few months. I would argue that the first two types of messages -- those sent to people with whom I'm in regular communication, via e-mail but also in person and on the phone -- can be looser, more emotional, sillier, etc.

Just to clarify -- I agree completely with the first comment. My reply was to the second.

Excellent point! It's not about writing - - - - it's about communication ..... That says it all.