| Pete Dashwood 2005-08-10, 9:59 pm |
|
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:dddh8d$1pnh$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3lt40aF14658jU1@individual.net...
>
> fair
>
> Just to be clear, I believe that to describe an action as "stupid", based
> on
> the common understanding of the meaning of the word (as well as the M-W
> definition) as dim-witted or having characteristics of the actions
> expected
> of a dim-witted person, carries implications about the person taking those
> actions.
Not for me. I can see an action as being stupid without making any judgement
about the person doing it. Smart people often do stupid things. But I
explained that. And I said then and say now, no contempt was intended.
How does something written in a dictionary change that? Why would you cling
to the 'meaning' in your authority, when I have clarified exactly how I was
using the word and what I intended by it? Doesn't it strike you as a
pointless exercise...?
"MW says 'stupid' means...."
"Yes, but I used it in a slightly different way from that..."
"But MW says...."
ad nauseum...
UNTIL, I clarified my meaning, your point was valid. After that it is just
silly...
> There are a wide variety of other equally-pejorative adjectives
> one could use that don't carry the pejorative characterization of the
> *person* taking the action that "stupid" does.
The above appears to contradict itself; how can something be equally
pejorative and not carry a pejorative characterization? It is just playing
with words, Chuck. What you are saying is I should choose some other
derogatory term to express my disapproval because you don't like 'stupid'.
As I am not psychic, I really can't know what terms you will be offended by,
so I take the line of least resistance and use the words I want to. I don't
think that is unreasonable in a public forum. I'm certainly not going to
filter and censor everything I write because someone may understand it
differently than I intended, or may read more into it than I intended, or
may be using an authority for a definition that I don't have or use, or may
be upset by what I wrote.
I sometimes find your posts pompous and pedantic (not so much of late -
maybe we're all getting mellower...). But I don't take you to task over it
or get offended by it. I respect your right to express yourself how you see
fit. I also accept that there are fundamantal issues you and I will never
agree on, but that doesn't cause me to see you as the 'enemy' or set out to
offend you.
Your reaction to what you encounter here is your reaction to what you
encounter here.
>
> M-W Ninth Collegiate lists the synonyms "STUPID, DULL, DENSE, CRASS, DUMB
> mean lacking in power to absorb ideas or impressions. STUPID implies a
> slow-witted or dazed state of mind that may be either congenital or
> temporary ... ". *All* these terms have implications directed toward
> people. If you didn't *mean to communicate* what the term "stupid"
> communicates, then perhaps another term that more accurately reflected
> your
> intent might have been more suitable!
No, I believe the action described was stupid. I'm not going to consult MW
(or any other authority)before I post here. It is CLC, not the Supreme
Court. I clarified and qualified my use of the term 'stupid'.
>
> < None of that was ever intended by me.
>
> Yes, I understand that now, and have for a while. What you intended
> wasn't
> as accurately reflected in what you actually wrote as you might have
> hoped.
>
Well, it certainly wasn't as far as your concerned. For that I am sorry. But
I call 'em like I see 'em.
> been sitting in
>
> Yes, I think I would have, if (as appeared to be the case in the course of
> the thread) the insistence that there is no possible context in which the
> described actions could be described as anything but "stupid". And if you
> think I've been overly sensitive about the use of "stupid" you should have
> seen how I'd have reacted back when I still was doing stuff like "sitting
> in
> a bar discussing it over a beer"! I tend to stay out of bars and pubs
> and
> the like these days. "Over coffee", maybe!
OK, in a friendly environment, then...
>
> interpretation of my meaning?
> it...)
>
> Might well have; I do think I'd have at least responded with something
> like
> "Stupid is a pretty harsh word, don't you think?"
>
Fair enough. I could have picked up on your sensitivity to the word and may
have substituted another on the spot, or clarified that there was no
implication in my use of it. So context definitely has an important effect
on communication.
> I might even have gone on to amplify it with an example like: What if
> the
> *reason* a particular person did it that way was that that's the way the
> application architect told him he wanted it, and that if he didn't do it
> that way he was going to lose his job, and along with that the medical
> benefits he was planning on to cover the upcoming birth of his child? I'd
> contend the behavior of a person who stomped out of the office in a huff
> Never To Dark On Their Door Again rather than offend his own sensibilities
> would objectively be considered at least as unreasonable as the behavior
> of
> a person who did what his employer told him to do! Which one's taking the
> "stupid" action?
>
Check the meaning of 'darken' as opposed to 'dark on'... Even with MW
readily available, in the hands of a highly qualified Linguist, sometimes
the wrong word gets used. Nevertheless, from the context, and being a person
of goodwill, I grasped your meaning. :-)
> always
>
> It certainly wasn't my intent here. But as I'm sure you've seen in
> another
> current thread (about whether unsigned items always have an *explicit*
> sign
> on all meaningful architectures) I will question a categorical statement
> when I see that there's a "local" truth, and not a "universal" one,
> underlying the statement.!
>
Good for you. This is a public unmoderated forum. One of the last bastions
of Free Speech left on the planet...I treasure it, even though it irritates
me sometimes (I'm learning to deal with that... :-)) People SHOULD post
their opinions here.
>
> True enough, but as others have pointed out when I use a word the way *I*
> define it, rather than the way I have good reason to believe *others
> understand* the word, it is *I* that am failing to communicate my intent,
> not my audience that is failing to make the proper assumptions.
I take full responsibility for people failing to understand what I write.
Fortunately, it doesn't happen very often.
>
>
> So, I would argue, is ensuring that we don't use terms "idiopathically"
> (taken in its non-pejorative current dictionary sense, rather than its
> etymological one), particularly for terms that others might find
> pejorative!
Sorry, Chuck, it's too much trouble. I can't filter everything I write
because someone might find it pejorative. By far the majority of people here
had no problem with it and accepted it was simply my opinion. I don't write
to wound. I do have a strong opinion about what I perceive to be stupid
practices.
I believe you over reacted. The only thing I'm sorry about is that you took
offense where none was intended. I understand why you did, but there is
little I can do about that.
I will consider in future HOW strong I want to be about something, but I
have no intention of watering down or stifling the opinions I express here,
or the way in which I express them. Don't read my posts if they upset you.(I
know you have to read them before you can decide your reaction, but let's
say if you consistently find reading my posts to be an unpleasant
experience, then, for you, it is probably best avoided...)
Nevertheless some worthwhile things have come out of this experience and, if
nothing else, it has caused me to re-examine the whole business of
communication.
Let's move on.
Pete.
|