Videoconference

From a letter ...

LIM: How did your day go?

TAN: We did a videoconference with our US partners.

LIM: How was it?

TAN: Like MSN.

LIM: Was it necessary? I did telephone conferences before and it was sufficiently effective.

TAN: With video you can see facial expressions and body language, or their lack. Of course you hear the tone of the voice too.

LIM: But you need to know a person to interpret or even notice such signs?

TAN: There are some universal signs: a nod means yes, and not no. A wince means he is uncomfortable, a sigh a sign of frustration, and hesitancy may indicate he is unsure.

LIM: The subject being discussed, matters too I suppose. The phone conferences I had were on technical matters.

TAN: We were getting him to commit to his plans.

LIM: I think video conferencing can be as good as being there, but you still need to know the guy. I am sure you know that ONG guy.

TAN: Ya.

LIM: You can never believe what ONG says. He can say yes and then turn around and say he never meant it. Seen him lately?

TAN: Nope. Last heard he got married.

LIM: But no one was invited to any wedding.

TAN: There we rumours that he married illegally, namely to someone of the same sex.

LIM: I suspected that too, but let's leave him alone and not get entangled with him.

TAN: I agree. This guy we talked on videoconference is a new partner for us.

LIM: So you were trying to interpret someone you don’t know? How do you know his yes means a yes, or his no really means no?

TAN: That's no longer a video conferencing issue. Even if you see him face-to-face you cannot know what he means. You need to know him.

LIM: Do you not see the irony?

TAN: What do you mean?

LIM: If you have known him, he can just say yes or no, on the phone or even in an email, and it will be good enough.

TAN: When I was in National Service I often hear my Operational Officer and Signals Officer argue over the need for video conferencing in the field. The Operational Officer always insisted he needs it but the Signals Officer thinks otherwise.

LIM: Have you ever wondered how people talked before there was email or the telephone or even the telegraph?

TAN: I suppose you either talk by snail mail, also know as letters, which get delivered by horseback, or ships and trains, or you travel yourself to see each other face-to-face.

LIM: And today we have the mobile phone. And you can call anyone, anytime, anywhere in the world. And not to say SMS and voicemail, and MSN and ICQ, etc. And email has become like snail mail, slow and unresponsive, relatively.

TAN: Then it was certainly not interactive and not real time at all.

LIM: I cannot imagine how you can talk. You say something and you wait for months or years for a reply, if at all.

TAN: And in the meantime things happened, things come and go, and things changed daily.

LIM: And people changed too.

TAN: Certainly.

LIM: People may talk less then, but do you think they know each other less than we do today?

TAN: Perhaps not. I think there are more conflicts today then there were in the past.

LIM: Maybe there is another irony here. The more we talk, the less we know.

TAN: Or maybe the more we know, the more we hate each other.

LIM: And we can be seeing each other face-to-face daily, but yet remain strangers.

TAN: I read somewhere that even enemies at war talk to each other, but here our next-door neighbours avoid us deliberately.

LIM: Enemies talk to each other because the best way to know your enemy is to be his friend.

TAN: So we have another irony here: the one who knows you best is your enemy, and the one who you think is your friend, may not really know you.

LIM: This brings us back to the ONG character. We all know him very well indeed, but I don’t think anyone of us will call him a friend.

TAN: [Laughs]

LIM: So what shall we have for dinner?

TAN: The full course again, including dessert, just like everyday.

LIM: [Laughs]