Fred,

I have to disagree. All things being equal and assuming the audience, congregation, conference or group is generally of active and average intelligence anything that is said in such a way as to be misunderstood is an insult to the audience. Granted not all such comments are meant to be insulting and are quite accidental.
   But if that happens all the time and every audience is left going "Huh? Wazzat?" Then who is fool? AND the real message that you want to get across is lost, no matter how good it may be.
   If we take it upon ourselves to communicate a meaning or a message that requires the group to think a little bit or question their own beliefs then I think we are doing our job as communicators. But to bury it in layers of obscurity is just counter productive and probably has the opposite result from that which was intended.
   In the case with this thread had I gotten past the name "Guest" I might have read a deeper meaning. My fault for giving no credence to someone who is unwilling to share a name. ( I don't care if it is someones real name or their internet handle, as long as it defines them as an entity. After all some other "Guest" may take a load of undeserved shit only because of the name thing. And that too would be a failure in clear communication.)
   I stand by my thesis, Communication that can be missunderstood is not communication at all.

And I still appologize to Tunesmith.

Don