The other day I was waiting in a cinema, dressed in a dinner jacket and sporting a nifty umbrella - and the person I was waiting for had forgotten our meeting. I'd been invited to something like a premiere and was allowed to bring one guest along.

When I phoned the intended guest 5 minutes after the arranged time (which for once had to be kept absolutely, since there was an i.d. check queue we had to be at before the film began), they were sitting in a good mood at their desk. I was flabbergasted. Too hectically, probably, I said, i.a.:

I meant that perhaps 5% as it was said. It was just shorter to say than "You've forgotten your appointment with me". That's what I really meant to transport.

I didn't give it much thought, although I did wonder when hearing nothing more of the non-attendee for the next 36 hours or so. In fact, I thought that a bit heartless.

When an SMS came along, apologising for badly seating me (German idiom for not having turned up), due to time pressure and exhaustion, etc., I thought I'd just mention in a return SMS that the behaviour on the phone indicated that I'd simply been forgotten. Also to suggest a technical solution how I could help prevent this in future (it has happened a few times before, you see).

Unfortunately I began the SMS with the same sentence as the highlighted one above, this time in writing.

Again, I actually wanted to communicate the forgetting more than the "me". But, maybe since SMS texts need to be short, and because the brain likes repeating things it already "knows", I again chose the brief version.

Now a rather angry SMS came along from the other side, preaching that it hadn't been "m e" that had been "f o r g o t t e n", and that I shouldn't always take things personally. Of course, I shot back a too-dry defensive SMS.

Only (days) later, I realised we'd probably been "arguing" off-target, in parallel, constantly misunderstanding each other. I was set on addressing the other's (constant) forgetting; the other person's focus was on my double "me" - also probably explaining the 36 hours. Having forgotten that I'd gotten dressed up because they'd said that was how they would come.

But "dressed down" communication like brief phone calls and SMS texts aren't really designed for better understanding and less (mis)interpretation at all. So why don't we - yes, me, too! - learn to slow down during a crisis, and not use some macho tight-lipped Dirty Harry mode to transport important negotiation data?

I wonder if that's the reason Twitter has become such a source for storms of public indignation and even hysteria. Of course also a source preferred by ISIL.

We know - even if we may ignore - Slow Food. Let's also bring in more Slow Talk. E.g. in person, seated, in a neutral place. Considered communication, longer than 140 or 160 characters at a time, to de-escalate crises.

Even better (provided you survive the fight): Write a snail-mailed letter!