<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: The secret to being trusted, esteemed, and making others feel good</title>
	<atom:link href="http://smyword.com/2010/02/the-secret-to-being-trusted-esteemed-and-making-others-feel-good/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://smyword.com/2010/02/the-secret-to-being-trusted-esteemed-and-making-others-feel-good/</link>
	<description>Writing and content strategy for small businesses</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Mon, 30 Jan 2012 23:48:26 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gabriel</title>
		<link>http://smyword.com/2010/02/the-secret-to-being-trusted-esteemed-and-making-others-feel-good/#comment-197</link>
		<dc:creator>Gabriel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 15:34:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smyword.com/?p=438#comment-197</guid>
		<description>Disfluent is indeed clumsy. Afluent is a mismatch because &#039;a-&#039; is Greek and &#039;fluent&#039; Latin in origin. Plus, like you say, it would be confused with affluent (which comes from Latin ad- &#039;to&#039; and &#039;fluere&#039; flowing).

I&#039;m beginning to see why psychologists chose disfluent. Influent (&#039;in-&#039; denoting the negative in Latin) is already taken, confusingly the &#039;in-&#039; here meaning &#039;into&#039; – the word means flowing into. So I found myself using disfluent the other day in conversation, although I can&#039;t force my mouth to say disfluency. 

Perhaps better would be simply to talk about a site not being fluent, or not having cognitive fluency. We could even say blocked or, to stick to the Latin, restricted.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Disfluent is indeed clumsy. Afluent is a mismatch because &#8216;a-&#8217; is Greek and &#8216;fluent&#8217; Latin in origin. Plus, like you say, it would be confused with affluent (which comes from Latin ad- &#8216;to&#8217; and &#8216;fluere&#8217; flowing).</p>
<p>I&#8217;m beginning to see why psychologists chose disfluent. Influent (&#8216;in-&#8217; denoting the negative in Latin) is already taken, confusingly the &#8216;in-&#8217; here meaning &#8216;into&#8217; – the word means flowing into. So I found myself using disfluent the other day in conversation, although I can&#8217;t force my mouth to say disfluency. </p>
<p>Perhaps better would be simply to talk about a site not being fluent, or not having cognitive fluency. We could even say blocked or, to stick to the Latin, restricted.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Alan</title>
		<link>http://smyword.com/2010/02/the-secret-to-being-trusted-esteemed-and-making-others-feel-good/#comment-195</link>
		<dc:creator>Alan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Mar 2010 14:10:36 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smyword.com/?p=438#comment-195</guid>
		<description>Unfortunately disfluent is such a clumsy word, belittled by spell checkers.  Would a better word be afluent - to indicate the absence of fluent-ness? 

But Afluent fares no better with the wavey red lines of correct verbage, and will obviously be confused with affluent.  As an aside, where does affluence come from? (Etymologically speaking, not philosophically).

On reflection, perhaps effluent is a better label for the concept of dissonant communication.  As in, &quot;You&#039;re talking shite again.&quot;

I&#039;ll get my coat ...</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Unfortunately disfluent is such a clumsy word, belittled by spell checkers.  Would a better word be afluent &#8211; to indicate the absence of fluent-ness? </p>
<p>But Afluent fares no better with the wavey red lines of correct verbage, and will obviously be confused with affluent.  As an aside, where does affluence come from? (Etymologically speaking, not philosophically).</p>
<p>On reflection, perhaps effluent is a better label for the concept of dissonant communication.  As in, &#8220;You&#8217;re talking shite again.&#8221;</p>
<p>I&#8217;ll get my coat &#8230;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Ian Alexander</title>
		<link>http://smyword.com/2010/02/the-secret-to-being-trusted-esteemed-and-making-others-feel-good/#comment-160</link>
		<dc:creator>Ian Alexander</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 11 Feb 2010 14:12:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smyword.com/?p=438#comment-160</guid>
		<description>I love when science and common sense align. Get me thinking about Alain De Botton&#039;s book the &quot;The Architecture of Happiness.&quot; Great post.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love when science and common sense align. Get me thinking about Alain De Botton&#8217;s book the &#8220;The Architecture of Happiness.&#8221; Great post.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrew Parker</title>
		<link>http://smyword.com/2010/02/the-secret-to-being-trusted-esteemed-and-making-others-feel-good/#comment-158</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrew Parker</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 10 Feb 2010 15:16:37 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://smyword.com/?p=438#comment-158</guid>
		<description>Facebook Connect.

Have you ever tried commenting on a site which allows you to use your facebook login?

The facebook connect button produces a facebook styled popup saying:

&quot;Connect Blah-Blah with Facebook to interact with your friends on this site and to share on Facebook through your Wall and friends&#039; News Feeds.&quot;

(huh?) followed by a diagram illustrating that your friends and info will somehow be sucked into this site, and in return the site will spam your facebook wall.  Whaaaa??  

I want to comment on a blog post - if you want to pull contact information from facebook to identify me...OK, but disfluency abounds when you start talking about interacting with friends and publishing information on news feeds.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Facebook Connect.</p>
<p>Have you ever tried commenting on a site which allows you to use your facebook login?</p>
<p>The facebook connect button produces a facebook styled popup saying:</p>
<p>&#8220;Connect Blah-Blah with Facebook to interact with your friends on this site and to share on Facebook through your Wall and friends&#8217; News Feeds.&#8221;</p>
<p>(huh?) followed by a diagram illustrating that your friends and info will somehow be sucked into this site, and in return the site will spam your facebook wall.  Whaaaa??  </p>
<p>I want to comment on a blog post &#8211; if you want to pull contact information from facebook to identify me&#8230;OK, but disfluency abounds when you start talking about interacting with friends and publishing information on news feeds.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

