That was an interesting post, H405, so I reread it twice. I think I get what you mean, but to be sure perhaps you could help me apply the principle you outlined. If one were to get an email that said something like this:

Ian (or should I say MAD POSTER?):

I would like to ask you one thing . . .

What exactly was the point of your little adventure on Christmas Eve?

And why did you feel the compulsion to make the same point SIXTY-SEVEN times over again --- before you feel that you made your point?

I am just curious as to what I did that pushed you to that point?

Please respond --- as I am certainly curious . . .

Thank you for your time . . .

=======================================================

Does this mean that no matter what I say or do, such a person could never be swayed one way or the other? Or is it something that I should simply deny SIXTY-EIGHT times, in the chance that a mere plurality would pique his curiosity?  

Well Kravitz, I'll take a stab at answering your question. 

I'll begin, as I always do, by questioning terminology.  First, your emailer states:  "I would just like to ask you one thing." 

Now to you and me, this sentence likely carries a similar meaning, i.e., "what will follow is one question to which I would like to know your answer."  However, your emailer quickly proves to have more than "one thing" to ask you, as he/she almost immediately launches no fewer than THREE questions!!!

Thus, all the politeness points earned in the first sentence by the meekly stated "I would like to ask" are burned away.

And it is possible, of course, that the emailer intended this.  Many people manage to work quite nefariously within the confines of what passes for politeness, so perhaps your emailer wished to do away with politeness entirely.

I, however, have another theory.  I think your emailer is someone who simply is not careful with words.  Note the redundancy and shifting verb tenses in "why did you feel the compulsion to make the same point SIXTY-SEVEN times over again --- before you feel . . . "

If I had to guess, I'd say that your emailer is a person who feels him/herself to have very little time on his/her hands.  Certainly no time for proofreading.  This email, then, is best read as a mad dash, a quick and sloppy bite at meaning.  The author is probably busy with something else, such as a book.

As a reader, I just wouldn't give it much time.

Herring405

PS:  who the heck is "Ian"?