1) I can remember a particular conversation about deciding where to go out and eat. It seems this conversation goes in the same direction where the question of “Where do you want to eat?” is responded with “I don’t know.” Then, when the suggestion of a restaurant is mention it is usually responded with a “no.” To make this conversation, go better I think it would be best if the sender gives only options of certain restaurants or food type. For example, “I would like Chinese or Italian, which do you prefer?” can hopefully be responded with their own choice. I think this kind of dialog gives better feedback for both the sender and receiver because the sender gives the receiver a less ambiguous question. The unambiguous question can help the receiver decide.
2) I just recently read an article about a person’s view on the news media about Sarah Palin’s speech. He finds it ridiculous the praise their giving her when in fact the things she said were quite hypocritical. By reading this, I felt he was saying how the news media is foolish. Also, he is indirectly calling Palin a liar. As of addressing the community, he is sending a message to not to trust everything we hear.
3) When person is labeled either a professor, AIDS activist, politician, CEO, lawyer, or doctor there is certain authority and trust already given to these labels. These kinds of labels allow them to have an influence on people. We associate these labels with people who are more knowledgeable so whatever they say we can assume is right. This can be very liberating to them that there communication is received. However, if anyone who holds one of these labels does anything wrong there word is no longer accepted and the trust is lost.