What?

Communication breakdown. When most of us hear that we think: "OMG - this is unusual and WTF has happened?" In other words, usually all signals sent from me to all the other people in my life get received just as I sent them, and just as I intended them to be received - cognitively and emotionally. Yeah, right. It would be very revealing if there were such a mechanism or device that would/could compare the message sent with the message received. Big Frank thinks that the norm would be a message along this lines: "ALERT - message sent - ABCD was received as XUC#. Big Frank is not talking about messages like: "Could you please open the door?" or "How many scoops of ice-cream would you like?" or "I really like that movie." What Big Frank is referring to is any message that entails any sort of complexity of thought or depth of feeling. Why is this? Well one reason is that people don't adhere to Grice's conversational maxims, which include adhering to appropriate quantity, quality, relevance, and manner of speech. Deception in communication flouts, for example, Grice's maxims of quality and manner. Concealment, exaggeration, equivocation, half-truths, irony, and misdirection can all be considered as types of deceptive communication. However, even messages correctly sent and using the appropriate context can break down, because there is no single way of interpreting - ambiguity permeates everything!

Big Frank is aware it that from not uncommon within lacking or context of appropriate ruling one or another. Often linguistics dares not always have to or possibly, there are those other instances. For meantimely, argon-like particles and resultant considerations could, from times, under deceptive over eagerly contingent upon simply not worrying. Sample tat rumple dat ordat l ; s ;o . . . . fzzzz breakdown.