Cobol - [OT] Liberal Weeny Spouting off....Was VSAM doubt

Author

[OT] Liberal Weeny Spouting off....Was VSAM doubt

jce

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:430548E2.B7A1CB0B@mts.net...
> Ron wrote:
>
[color=darkred]
> For heaven's sake - give him or her credit for effort! How would you
> get on in Hindi or Punjabi or whatever?
>
> PL
This is the crap retort that always gets posted in response to someone
talking smack about someone's abilities to express themselves in english. I
would guess that Ron's Hindi, Punjabi and whatever is as good as it needs to
be thanks very much. When he need to work in Chennai and he asks some
newsgroup for help and he comes off sounding like an idiot, then your
question would be more appropriate.

I do think a fairer question would be to ask how he knows "Praveen" is from
"over there"...and exactly what "over there" means, and furthermore what he
means by "over there". I've seen worse english come out of the North East
US so I would not have any questions that "Praveen" works in New Jersey - or
is that doubts? Having said that, I don't think it's actually terribly
important to know the answer.

Frankly, I do support your posting....as I'm tired of the acceptance of
subtle (and becoming more open) racism in the american culture and I think
it's important that people can stand against that. I do, however, tend to
assume that all statements (including Ron's) are innocent of any hatred,
demeaning spirit towards anyone even if it appears based on some prejudice.
I can make this statement based on the fact that he gave _help_ with the
english and gave an answer to the doubts..or questions...I'd rather live
with my assumption of the good in others than to find out otherwise.

Everyone has prejudicial thoughts - the more compassionate can just see past
theirs.

JCE

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

In article <fucNe.21283$Yx1.19208@tornado.tampabay.rr.com>,
jce <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:
>"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
>news:430548E2.B7A1CB0B@mts.net...

[snip]
[color=darkred]

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>I do think a fairer question would be to ask how he knows "Praveen" is from
>"over there"...and exactly what "over there" means, and furthermore what he
>means by "over there". I've seen worse english come out of the North East
>US so I would not have any questions that "Praveen" works in New Jersey - or
>is that doubts?

It is my experience that more than a few folks working in Manhattan refer
to New Jersey with a deprecating hand-wave and an '... over *there*';
perhaps this custom has travelled.

>Having said that, I don't think it's actually terribly
>important to know the answer.

.... which might be the reason, of course, for asking it here!

DD

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

This is one of the best responses I have ever seen in CLC.

more below...

"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fucNe.21283$Yx1.19208@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:430548E2.B7A1CB0B@mts.net...
>
> This is the crap retort that always gets posted in response to someone
> talking smack about someone's abilities to express themselves in english.
> I would guess that Ron's Hindi, Punjabi and whatever is as good as it
> needs to be thanks very much. When he need to work in Chennai and he asks
> some newsgroup for help and he comes off sounding like an idiot, then your
> question would be more appropriate.
>
> I do think a fairer question would be to ask how he knows "Praveen" is
> from "over there"...and exactly what "over there" means, and furthermore
> what he means by "over there". I've seen worse english come out of the
> North East US so I would not have any questions that "Praveen" works in
> New Jersey - or is that doubts? Having said that, I don't think it's
> actually terribly important to know the answer.
>
> Frankly, I do support your posting....as I'm tired of the acceptance of
> subtle (and becoming more open) racism in the american culture and I think
> it's important that people can stand against that. I do, however, tend to
> assume that all statements (including Ron's) are innocent of any hatred,
> demeaning spirit towards anyone even if it appears based on some
> prejudice.

I like to make the same assumptions. Sometimes I am wrong.

The World is becoming SO politically correct that issues get blurred into
each other and the issues of Racism, Sexism, Ageism, and any other kind of
'ism' can be used to deflect attention from the original point.

Ron was unhappy about Praveen's use of 'doubt'. His comments were based on
English usage and, although I wasn't personally annoyed, (I have no problem
with Praveen using 'doubt' in the way he did, recognizing that English may
not be his first language), I understand that Ron found it irritating and
said so. If Ron had been commenting on a post by me or any other regular
poster here who is of European ethnicity, it is extremely unlikely that
Peter Lacey would have posted. (This is not to imply that Peter was wrong to
post; he has as much right to post here as anybody. It is a public forum.)
The point I am attempting to make is that we are so sensitised to PC issues
that sometimes we see demons where there are none.

Like jce, I am persuaded by Ron's actions, that his post was not prompted by
Racism. He attempted to HELP. That is what this forum is supposed to be
about.

> I can make this statement based on the fact that he gave _help_ with the
> english and gave an answer to the doubts..or questions...I'd rather live
> with my assumption of the good in others than to find out otherwise.

So would I, and I endorse this sentiment 100%.
>
> Everyone has prejudicial thoughts - the more compassionate can just see
> past theirs.
>
> JCE
>

Excellent and thought-provoking response, jce.

Thanks.

Pete.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

In article <3mlqn3F17386nU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

[snip]

>If Ron had been commenting on a post by me or any other regular
>poster here who is of European ethnicity, it is extremely unlikely that
>Peter Lacey would have posted.

Even were he to have been posting about the addlepated use of 'full stop'
instead of the Decent and Right 'period'? I recall some moderately...
spirited debates about various dialects of the English language.

DD

Ron

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

In this and other forums the incorrect use of "doubt" in the context
of asking a "question" is a ubiquitous english mistake by those from
India. Having time on my hands I finally decided that an english lesson
was in order. There is no sure way to separate cultures than if they
cannot communicate accurately. The question WAS posted in english.
If those from India can communicate better with their english speaking
counterparts their effectiveness will be greatly improved. Accuracy
IS kind of important when reading requirements and writing code.

Peter Lacey

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

jce wrote:
>
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:430548E2.B7A1CB0B@mts.net...
>
[color=darkred]
> This is the crap retort that always gets posted in response to someone
> talking smack about someone's abilities to express themselves in english. I
> would guess that Ron's Hindi, Punjabi and whatever is as good as it needs to
> be thanks very much. When he need to work in Chennai and he asks some
> newsgroup for help and he comes off sounding like an idiot, then your
> question would be more appropriate.
IMHO he does come off sounding like an idiot - and in English. Why is
this a "crap" response? Is it wrong? Misguided?

> Frankly, I do support your posting....as I'm tired of the acceptance of
> subtle (and becoming more open) racism in the american culture and I think
> it's important that people can stand against that. I do, however, tend to
> assume that all statements (including Ron's) are innocent of any hatred,
> demeaning spirit towards anyone even if it appears based on some prejudice.
> I can make this statement based on the fact that he gave _help_ with the
> english and gave an answer to the doubts..or questions...I'd rather live
> with my assumption of the good in others than to find out otherwise.
Now you've got me

. I've made a crap retort but you're
supporting it! Thanks, I guess. Ron may be innocent of any hatred,
etc., as you suggest but his language does not suggest that. He did
give answers. he didn't need to give the language lesson at all.

>
> Everyone has prejudicial thoughts - the more compassionate can just see past
> theirs.
>
> JCE

This post arouses many other comments.

1) Who is the "weeny liberal" you refer to?

2) what does one's political outlook have to do with the issue? Are you
a "conservative"?

3) why bring name-calling into it at all?

PL

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

In article <430603F5.72CACCC2@mts.net>, Peter Lacey <lacey@mts.net> wrote:

[snip]

>3) why bring name-calling into it at all?

Name-calling? That's *just* what a poopie-head would say!

DD

Peter Lacey

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> This is one of the best responses I have ever seen in CLC.
>
> more below...
>
> "jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fucNe.21283$Yx1.19208@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
[color=darkred]
> Ron was unhappy about Praveen's use of 'doubt'. His comments were based on
> English usage and, although I wasn't personally annoyed, (I have no problem
> with Praveen using 'doubt' in the way he did, recognizing that English may
> not be his first language), I understand that Ron found it irritating and
> said so. If Ron had been commenting on a post by me or any other regular
> poster here who is of European ethnicity, it is extremely unlikely that
> Peter Lacey would have posted. (This is not to imply that Peter was wrong to
> post; he has as much right to post here as anybody. It is a public forum.)

Please don't impute motives or prejudices or politics to me in this
fashion. It wouldn't have mattered where the opiginal post came from, I
was angered by Ron's tone, his assumption of superiority, his "listen to
this and try to lesrn" approach - the whole method and mode of his
English lesson was unwarranted and insulting. And it was superfluous,
because he did give answers.

(The only reason I mentioned "Hindi or Punjabi or whatever" was because
the name "Praveen" resembles that of correspondents I have in Mumbai,
Bagalore, and other places in India).

PL

Peter Lacey

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

Ron wrote:
>
> In this and other forums the incorrect use of "doubt" in the context
> of asking a "question" is a ubiquitous english mistake by those from
> India. Having time on my hands I finally decided that an english lesson
> was in order. There is no sure way to separate cultures than if they
> cannot communicate accurately. The question WAS posted in english.
> If those from India can communicate better with their english speaking
> counterparts their effectiveness will be greatly improved. Accuracy
> IS kind of important when reading requirements and writing code.

This is too easy.

- "english" is supposed to be capitalized.

- "a ubiquitous english mistake" is ambiguous - it could be taken to
mean a mistake made by the English.

- "There is no sure way to separate cultures than if they cannot
communicate accurately."

This sentence doesn't make sense.

There are many quirks in the English speech of people from India - for
instance, I've noticed that when mentioning someone's name they quite
often say "the" first - "the Sarah", for instance. (At least among the
people from India that I've conversed with). But why make a point of it
if communication is not hindered? I'm sure that everyone on the group
noticed the word "doubt" and realized that it was the wrong word. I am
also sure that everyone understood what was meant.

You meant well, you say, but couldn't you have been nicer about it?
Couldn't you have just said "May I point out that the correct word is
'question', not 'doubt'?"? Then you'd have made your point and prehaps
received a "thank you". As it is I suspect you've only scored an insult
and perhaps added to the bad image perception of citizens of certain
Western countries in the rest of the world.

I have proofread this post several times but it wouldn't surprise me if
a mistake or two has slipped by.

PL

Chuck Stevens

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:43060615.E94E029C@mts.net...

> Please don't impute motives or prejudices or politics to me in this
> fashion. It wouldn't have mattered where the opiginal post came from, I
> was angered by Ron's tone, his assumption of superiority, his "listen to
> this and try to lesrn" approach - the whole method and mode of his
> English lesson was unwarranted and insulting.

One of my pet peeves is proselytization on any cause, because it presumes
not only that the recipient has inferior knowledge or understanding that
must be improved, but also that it is the proselyte's right and obligation
to ensure that the improving gets done. One or both presumptions might be
incorrect.

Proselytization can take the form of explicit advocacy, but it can also
creep in through the tone in which an idea is expressed. It is one thing
to advocate a position, another to denigrate its alternatives.

Not that any part of any of my posts could ever be characterized as
proselytizations, of course.

-Chuck Stevens

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-19, 4:12 pm

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:de51n5$oo0$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:43060615.E94E029C@mts.net...
>

Did I do that? I was speculating on whether you would have posted, not what
your motives were. However, I take your point; don't like it when people
ascribe inferences to my posts which are not there, so I'll take extra care
not to even provide the possibility of being acused of this in future.
[color=darkred]
>
How you feel about something is, obviously, your prerogative.

And yet many other people (several thousand read this forum) did not find it
so, or did not find it important enough to comment on.

I don't think "the the whole method and mode of his English lesson was
unwarranted and insulting" but I understand that you think that.

One possibility is that I am not sensitive enough to these issues, another
is that you are over sensitive.

> One of my pet peeves is proselytization on any cause, because it presumes
> not only that the recipient has inferior knowledge or understanding that
> must be improved, but also that it is the proselyte's right and obligation
> to ensure that the improving gets done. One or both presumptions might be
> incorrect.

I think you have a number of pet peeves, Chuck :-)

I agree with you that presumption is best avoided and often causes offence.
The problem (at least for me) is that sometimes meanings and inferences are
ascribed which were not intended. Was Ron's post intended to help, or was it
a put down? It can be interpreted either way. This is why I was impressed
with jce's post; like myself, if something is open to several possible
interpretations, he prefers the most positive one.

I would really love to have a friendly discussion with yourself, jce, and
Peter, in a 'friendly environment' to see if it made any difference to the
interpretation of meaning which we see here. (Not just in this instance, but
about things in general.)

>
> Proselytization can take the form of explicit advocacy, but it can also
> creep in through the tone in which an idea is expressed. It is one thing
> to advocate a position, another to denigrate its alternatives.
>
Absolutely. But this 'tone' thing is different things to different people.
And sometimes, in debate, denigrating alternatives to the position advocated
is an accepted part of rhetoric. I do it specifically and without
inferences; others do it in other ways.
(I would stress that this is a rhetorical device which I don't personally
favour, much preferring to push the position I am advocating rather than
denigrate the alternatives, but I have been known to use it... :-))

> Not that any part of any of my posts could ever be characterized as
> proselytizations, of course.
>

No of course not... :-)

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-19, 6:55 pm

. I've made a crap retort but you're
> supporting it! Thanks, I guess. Ron may be innocent of any hatred,
> etc., as you suggest but his language does not suggest that. He did
> give answers. he didn't need to give the language lesson at all.
>

The only measure of whether he was 'right' to do so, is not what you think
about it, or what I think about it, but what Praveen thinks about it. Maybe
he found it useful; maybe he found it offensive. Either way, what he thinks
about it is what is important here.

>
> This post arouses many other comments.
>
> 1) Who is the "weeny liberal" you refer to?
>
> 2) what does one's political outlook have to do with the issue? Are you
> a "conservative"?
>
> 3) why bring name-calling into it at all?
>

Yes, I agree the revised Subject is provocative. I took to be written with
tongue-in-ch

...

Pete.

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-19, 6:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de50d6$mk4$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <430603F5.72CACCC2@mts.net>, Peter Lacey <lacey@mts.net>
> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>
> Name-calling? That's *just* what a poopie-head would say!
>
> DD
>
I look forward to the day when I actually get to meet a 'poopie-head'... :-)

I've never encountered this epithet outside of this forum. (But then, my
life has been relatively sheltered (no, Doc, I was NOT raised in a bunker by
an Aunt :-)).

Do poopie-heads ONLY live in New York City? (my time there has been short; a
few w

s in total.)

Pete.

Chuck Stevens

2005-08-19, 6:55 pm

"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
news:3mn058F17bvmmU1@individual.net...

>
> Did I do that? I was speculating on whether you would have posted, not
what
> your motives were. However, I take your point; don't like it when people
> ascribe inferences to my posts which are not there, so I'll take extra
care
> not to even provide the possibility of being acused of this in future.

Ummm... I think you have me

with Peter ...

>
to[color=darkred]
> How you feel about something is, obviously, your prerogative.
>
> And yet many other people (several thousand read this forum) did not find
it
> so, or did not find it important enough to comment on.
>
> I don't think "the the whole method and mode of his English lesson was
> unwarranted and insulting" but I understand that you think that.

Well, I'm not sure what I think on this matter as yet, but I don't think I'd
go so far as "unwarranted and insulting"; I might meander into "a little
patronizing", however ...

> One possibility is that I am not sensitive enough to these issues, another
> is that you are over sensitive.

Well, I've been accused of oversensitivity (even in this very post!), but
I'm not sure that oversensitivity extends to the way I replied to the
original entry in the thread!

presumes[color=darkred]
that[color=darkred]
obligation[color=darkred]
be[color=darkred]
>
> I think you have a number of pet peeves, Chuck :-)

Don't get me started on "chaise lounge". Or "Porsch". Or "ad
infinEYEtuhm". Or "the data demonstrates ...". Or the use of "Bimmer" to
refer to any vehicle that has two wheels, or (even more offensive and
despicable) "Beemer" to refer to any vehicle that has four.

On the subject of transportation, however, I am unsure whether "Jaguar"
correctly has two syllables or three, or whether the third consonant in
"Bentley" is appropriately aspirated or replaced by a glottal stroke.
Perhaps someone can enlighten me on these two remaining gaps in my
knowledge.

>
> No of course not... :-)

The only reason I posted in the first place was to make that abundantly,
unequivocally, and above all incontrovertibly, clear! ;-)

-Chuck Stevens

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-19, 6:55 pm

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:de5lce$14at$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
>
>
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote in message
> news:3mn058F17bvmmU1@individual.net...
>
> what
> care
>
> Ummm... I think you have me

with Peter ...

No. Despite my often more frequently

state as senility kicks in, on
this occasion I was responding to both you and Peter. (it was an economy of
posting.)
>
> to
> it
>
> Well, I'm not sure what I think on this matter as yet, but I don't think
> I'd
> go so far as "unwarranted and insulting"; I might meander into "a little
> patronizing", however ...
>

It is interesting to see the different shades of sensitivity exhibited here.
Diverse creatures, us humans... :-)

>
> Well, I've been accused of oversensitivity (even in this very post!), but
> I'm not sure that oversensitivity extends to the way I replied to the
> original entry in the thread!

It wasn't aimed at you, Chuck, but I appreciate your comment, nevertheless.

>
> presumes
> that
> obligation
> be
>
> Don't get me started on "chaise lounge". Or "Porsch". Or "ad
> infinEYEtuhm". Or "the data demonstrates ...". Or the use of "Bimmer" to
> refer to any vehicle that has two wheels, or (even more offensive and
> despicable) "Beemer" to refer to any vehicle that has four.

Some new ones there for me...

Never heard "bimmer". "Beemer" is a BMW in our society. Personally (having
lived in Germany for a number of years), I say "Porsch-e" [por-sheh], but
I'm not offended when others don't. Never encountered "chaise lounge" and
would definitely have to suppress a snigger if I heard it... :-)
>
> On the subject of transportation, however, I am unsure whether "Jaguar"
> correctly has two syllables or three, or whether the third consonant in
> "Bentley" is appropriately aspirated or replaced by a glottal stroke.

My vote goes to aspiration for both the Bentley (2 syllables) and it's
engine ;-). People in Coventry, where Jaguar was originally made, and in
Birmingham where the main factory is located now (I used to pass it on my
way to do shopping) say "jag-u-ar", but I have heard the "jag-war"
prononunciation in London. I worked for a Brazilian who had a customised
XJ8, and was fanatical bout the cars, and he always said "jag-war". For many
people in England it is just "the Jag"...

> Perhaps someone can enlighten me on these two remaining gaps in my
> knowledge.
>

The above is simply opinion and not intended to be enlightening. I wouldn't
presume... :-)

>
> The only reason I posted in the first place was to make that abundantly,
> unequivocally, and above all incontrovertibly, clear! ;-)

It certainly came over that way to me... :-)

Pete

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-19, 9:55 pm

In article <3mn2mcF17mu9bU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de50d6$mk4$1@panix5.panix.com...
>I look forward to the day when I actually get to meet a 'poopie-head'... :-)
>
>I've never encountered this epithet outside of this forum. (But then, my
>life has been relatively sheltered (no, Doc, I was NOT raised in a bunker by
>an Aunt :-)).

It might be that your researchings have been equally sheltered, Mr
Dashwood...
<http://www.google.com/search?q=%22p...:en-US:official>

.... yielded me 771 entries. I don't know how to do an exclusionary search
on the newsgroups (in order to exclude the groups to which I post) but
there seem to be a few folks there who are bold enough to bandy about the
term, as well.

DD

Peter Lacey

2005-08-19, 9:55 pm

Pete Dashwood wrote:
>

>
> Yes, I agree the revised Subject is provocative. I took to be written with
> tongue-in-ch

...
>
> Pete.

Well, given that "liberal" is such an insult in the U.S., he must have a
very deep ch

... perhaps if he had put it in quotes ...

PL

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-20, 6:55 pm

<docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de61oh$p2p$1@panix5.panix.com...
>
> In article <3mn2mcF17mu9bU1@individual.net>,
> Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> It might be that your researchings have been equally sheltered, Mr
> Dashwood...
> <http://www.google.com/search?q=%22p...:en-US:official>
>
> ... yielded me 771 entries.

I didn't do any searches as it isn't really that important... but I followed
your link and I LOVED the "general discussion" forum where someone with a
handle of "poopie head" wrote:

"The only reason people come here is because they confuse 'general' with
'genital'..."

Response: It's a common mistake.

Further response: My generals itch...

Stuff like that is priceless... long live the Internet!

>I don't know how to do an exclusionary search
> on the newsgroups (in order to exclude the groups to which I post) but
> there seem to be a few folks there who are bold enough to bandy about the
> term, as well.
>
Try placing a minus sign in front of the groups you don't want...(see GOOGLE
extended search)

Pete
> DD
>
>

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-20, 6:55 pm

In article <3morsdF1848uiU1@individual.net>,
Pete Dashwood <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
>
><docdwarf@panix.com> wrote in message news:de61oh$p2p$1@panix5.panix.com...

[snip]
[color=darkred]
>
>I didn't do any searches as it isn't really that important... but I followed
>your link and I LOVED the "general discussion" forum where someone with a
>handle of "poopie head" wrote:
>
> "The only reason people come here is because they confuse 'general' with
>'genital'..."
>
>Response: It's a common mistake.
>
>Further response: My generals itch...
>
>Stuff like that is priceless... long live the Internet!

'Stuff like that is priceless'... it reminds me of an old Peanuts
comic-strip where Charlie Brown asks Lucy 'Do you think my personality is
so complex it defies analysis?'

Lucy responds 'No, I think your personality is so *simple* that it defies
analysis.'

Likewise, 'priceless' is, literally, 'without price'.

>
>Try placing a minus sign in front of the groups you don't want...(see GOOGLE
>extended search)

Greatly appreciated... learn something new every day.

DD

jce

2005-08-21, 6:55 pm

"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote in message
news:de5lce$14at$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com...
> On the subject of transportation, however, I am unsure whether "Jaguar"
> correctly has two syllables or three, or whether the third consonant in
> "Bentley" is appropriately aspirated or replaced by a glottal stroke.
> Perhaps someone can enlighten me on these two remaining gaps in my
> knowledge.

If in doubt, always go with the version that gets the girls:

"Just like a car.You're pleasing to behold.I'll call you Jag-u-ar.If I may
be so bold"

JCE

jce

2005-08-21, 6:55 pm

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:43068A83.381CB872@mts.net...
> Pete Dashwood wrote:
>
>
> Well, given that "liberal" is such an insult in the U.S., he must have a
> very deep ch

... perhaps if he had put it in quotes ...
>
> PL

The "liberal weeny spouting off" was me. It was not intended to be
provocative - it was in fact done to prevent a deluge of "you're just a
liberaly weeny" responses that so often come after making statements like I
was making. If offence was taken, I humbly apologize to myself for calling
me a liberal.

JCE

jce

2005-08-21, 6:55 pm

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:430603F5.72CACCC2@mts.net...
> jce wrote:
>
> IMHO he does come off sounding like an idiot - and in English. Why is
> this a "crap" response? Is it wrong? Misguided?

Perhaps "crap" was harsh. It's just a very third grade response - "well at
least his English is better than your <insert non-English language of
relevance>". I've heard it of Spanish, I've heard it of Chinese and Indian
dialects. I've heard it of French, German, Italian. I've even heard it of
"local dialects of English". It's being critical in a very non committal
way.

It is not wrong. It is not misguided. I don't feel it accomplishes what it
appears you want it to.

> Now you've got me

. I've made a crap retort but you're
> supporting it! Thanks, I guess. Ron may be innocent of any hatred,
> etc., as you suggest but his language does not suggest that. He did
> give answers. he didn't need to give the language lesson at all.

The prior response above should clarify what I meant. I agree with the
principle that is you should not allow anyone to make condescending remarks
to others for no reason. I think that the issue should either be "ignored"
if there is evidence to suggest that the intent was not harmful or the issue
should be addressed simply and up front. I think your answer did neither,
and I just decided to respond because I think it's important that people see
that generalized racial (and other) stereotyping is becoming accepted - and
that, to me at least, is unacceptable.

>
> This post arouses many other comments.
> 1) Who is the "weeny liberal" you refer to?
See other post.

> 2) what does one's political outlook have to do with the issue? Are you
> a "conservative"?
See other post.

> 3) why bring name-calling into it at all?
See other post.

> PL

Other post to save you time:

The "liberal weeny spouting off" was me. It was not intended to be
provocative - it was in fact done to prevent a deluge of "you're just a
liberaly weeny" responses that so often come after making statements like I
was making. If offence was taken, I humbly apologize to myself for calling
me a liberal.

It was using stereotype (I must be a liberal) to prevent a thread. That was
the theory.

JCE

jce

2005-08-21, 6:55 pm

"Ron" <Spamstopper@NoSpam.org> wrote in message
news:Xns96B74E41D44C3SpamKillerNoSpamOrg
@216.196.97.140...
> In this and other forums the incorrect use of "doubt" in the context
> of asking a "question" is a ubiquitous english mistake by those from
> India.

It is not a mistake. It's a difference.

> Having time on my hands I finally decided that an english lesson
> was in order. There is no sure way to separate cultures than if they
> cannot communicate accurately. The question WAS posted in english.
> If those from India can communicate better with their english speaking
> counterparts their effectiveness will be greatly improved. Accuracy
> IS kind of important when reading requirements and writing code.

The last time one of my teachers told us that "a lesson was in order" that
wasn't good news. Needless to say, he wasn't a popular teacher. Teaching,
is unfortunately, an undervalued and underappreciated skill and some are
better at it than others.

Perhaps we should organize "post reviews" before allowing them to be placed
on a global server.

JCE

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-21, 9:55 pm

"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:jr4Oe.38850$Yx1.4467@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:43068A83.381CB872@mts.net...
>
> The "liberal weeny spouting off" was me. It was not intended to be
> provocative - it was in fact done to prevent a deluge of "you're just a
> liberaly weeny" responses that so often come after making statements like
> I was making. If offence was taken, I humbly apologize to myself for
> calling me a liberal.
>
> JCE
>
Ah, now it becomes clear... :-)

Go and beat yourself up or get some rednecks to do it for you.

Pete.
>
>

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-21, 9:55 pm

"jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:xO4Oe.38857$Yx1.14601@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Ron" <Spamstopper@NoSpam.org> wrote in message
> news:Xns96B74E41D44C3SpamKillerNoSpamOrg
@216.196.97.140...
>
> It is not a mistake. It's a difference.
>
>
> The last time one of my teachers told us that "a lesson was in order" that
> wasn't good news. Needless to say, he wasn't a popular teacher.
> Teaching, is unfortunately, an undervalued and underappreciated skill and
> some are better at it than others.
>
> Perhaps we should organize "post reviews" before allowing them to be
> placed on a global server.
>
This has been considered by this forum from time to time in the past. The
question of moderating it has also been considered.

I hope it never happens, and if it does, I'll very likely not come here.
Part of the 'attraction' of this newsgroup (at least for me) is that it is
uncensored and unmoderated. People posting here know that. We have had
people come in with the stated aim of destroying it; sometimes they leave
after a w

or two and sometimes we find that three months later they have
become a valuable contributor.

There is something very important in being able to say exactly what you
think, whether it is politically correct, offensive to some people, deeply
meaningful, or just meaningless babble.

This is the truly important reason for having the Internet. It isn't just
about reference and knowledge; it is about unfettered communication, and a
public voice for all. This can sometimes rock societies to their
foundations.

Do you think the Russian Communist Dictatorship would have embraced
democracy when it did, if there was no Internet? Do you think that over 300
million Internet users (and growing) in China are having no effect on
official policy? Maybe, maybe not. Difficult to prove, but you can bet that
if the 'Party Line' is saying how wonderful and superior life is under the
Regime, and kids get on the Internet and see how kids who live under a
different regime live, and then they start communicating, and the Regime is
unable to suppress it... it isn't too long before there is a generation
demanding change. People don't generally like being lied to by their leaders
(and this applies in ANY Regime, including the ones we live under). The
Internet is a means of keeping them honest, or, at the very least, giving a
voice to opposing opinions.

Forums like this one are far more valuable than the mere discussion of the
finer points of a venerable computer programming language. Sure we
invariably go off topic, but the off-topic discussions often have more
intrinsic value than the on-topic ones. (OK, they don't always... and
threads can get tedious, but I'd rather see them published and know I don't
have to read them, than not see them published at all, or worse still, have
someone else decide for me what is acceptable and what isn't, BEFORE I get
to read it.) Sometimes publishing what isn't acceptable is a very good way
to raise awareness of it and get people thinking about it.

I get annoyed by stuff here, just like everybody else, but when I do, I
remind myself that the alternative would be much more 'annoying'...in fact,
it would be unbearable.

Consider and discuss: "I may not agree with what you say, but I shall defend
to the death, your right to say it." :-)

Pete.

Peter Lacey

2005-08-22, 3:55 am

jce wrote:
>
> "Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
> news:43068A83.381CB872@mts.net...
>
> The "liberal weeny spouting off" was me. It was not intended to be
> provocative - it was in fact done to prevent a deluge of "you're just a
> liberaly weeny" responses that so often come after making statements like I
> was making. If offence was taken, I humbly apologize to myself for calling
> me a liberal.
>
> JCE

Well, as an insult it fell rather flat with me - as you may know the
name of the governing party in Canada is "Liberal". But I did think it
was uncalled for, aince I didn't realize you were referring to
yourself. I am hereby writing it off.

PL

Howard Brazee

2005-08-22, 6:55 pm

On 20-Aug-2005, "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:

> Try placing a minus sign in front of the groups you don't want...(see GOOGLE
> extended search)

One trouble with Google is that it doesn't seem to be able to recognize web
copies of newsgroups. I often want to search in such a way as to exclude all
newsgroups, including web-based.

Howard Brazee

2005-08-22, 6:55 pm

On 19-Aug-2005, "Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> Don't get me started on "chaise lounge". Or "Porsch". Or "ad
> infinEYEtuhm". Or "the data demonstrates ...". Or the use of "Bimmer" to
> refer to any vehicle that has two wheels, or (even more offensive and
> despicable) "Beemer" to refer to any vehicle that has four.

I was unaware of either nickname until anti-yuppy jokes came out using them.
http://www.netfunny.com/rhf/jokes/88q1/762.9.html

> On the subject of transportation, however, I am unsure whether "Jaguar"
> correctly has two syllables or three, or whether the third consonant in
> "Bentley" is appropriately aspirated or replaced by a glottal stroke.
> Perhaps someone can enlighten me on these two remaining gaps in my
> knowledge.

I've heard advertisements for Jaguar, which introduced me to the English
pronunciation. Interesting that the English pronunciation is more phonetic than
the American this time, usually it is the other way around (most American
ancestors were literate before they learned English).

The word "Bentley" doesn't come up in conversation in the USA very often, and I
have no idea what you are referring to above. USAmericans with the money and
inclination to buy Bentleys almost always prefer Rollses. But when we go to
rich neighborhoods, German sports cars rule.

Howard Brazee

2005-08-22, 6:55 pm

On 21-Aug-2005, "jce" <defaultuser@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If in doubt, always go with the version that gets the girls:
>
> "Just like a car.You're pleasing to behold.I'll call you Jag-u-ar.If I may
> be so bold"

My favorite image of a Jaguar though is with the early 12 cylinder convertible,
driven by a nubile woman with her hair streaming back.

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-22, 6:55 pm

In article <de5lce$14at$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
Chuck Stevens <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Or the use of "Bimmer" to
>refer to any vehicle that has two wheels, or (even more offensive and
>despicable) "Beemer" to refer to any vehicle that has four.

Eh? Must be ones I missed, I guess... back when I was biking a Beemer was
only a Beemer if it had horizontally-opposed jugs; the 250cc single was
called the Baby Beemer.

(I know that some of the more modern models have different
engine-configurations than The Classic... but the other day I was walking
down the street and I was passed by what looked to be a fairly new BMW
motorcycle with proper jugs... and that thing was *quiet*, I've heard more
noise out of desk-fans.)

(Just surfed to http://www.bmwmotorcycles.com/machineTmpl.jsp ... it
boasts an in-line 4, nigh 1200cc... and zero-to-sixty (that's miles per
hour) in 2.8 seconds. I am sitting down and still my knees are weak and
trembling.)

DD

Joe Zitzelberger

2005-08-25, 3:55 am

In article <3mlqn3F17386nU1@individual.net>,
"Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
> Ron was unhappy about Praveen's use of 'doubt'. His comments were based on
> English usage and, although I wasn't personally annoyed, (I have no problem
> with Praveen using 'doubt' in the way he did, recognizing that English may
> not be his first language), I understand that Ron found it irritating and
> said so. If Ron had been commenting on a post by me or any other regular
> poster here who is of European ethnicity, it is extremely unlikely that
> Peter Lacey would have posted. (This is not to imply that Peter was wrong to
> post; he has as much right to post here as anybody. It is a public forum.)
> The point I am attempting to make is that we are so sensitised to PC issues
> that sometimes we see demons where there are none.

Is it valid to express doubt about the manner in which doubt is resolved?

Joe Zitzelberger

2005-08-25, 3:55 am

In article <de5lce$14at$1@si05.rsvl.unisys.com>,
"Chuck Stevens" <charles.stevens@unisys.com> wrote:

> Don't get me started on "chaise lounge". Or "Porsch". Or "ad
> infinEYEtuhm". Or "the data demonstrates ...". Or the use of "Bimmer" to
> refer to any vehicle that has two wheels, or (even more offensive and
> despicable) "Beemer" to refer to any vehicle that has four.
>
> On the subject of transportation, however, I am unsure whether "Jaguar"
> correctly has two syllables or three, or whether the third consonant in
> "Bentley" is appropriately aspirated or replaced by a glottal stroke.
> Perhaps someone can enlighten me on these two remaining gaps in my
> knowledge.

Isn't that one obvious. "Jaguar" has two syllables when spoken in
English-US and three syllables when spoken in English-UK. See also
similar "U" words ColoUr, HonoUr, Armour, et al.

But I have to ask -- what is a "Bimmer"? Is that a BMW motorcycle?

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-25, 7:56 am

In article <joe_zitzelberger-5A4AAD.23370924082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com>,
Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

[snip]

>Is it valid to express doubt about the manner in which doubt is resolved?

That might depend on the criteria one uses to determine validity, Mr
Zitzelberger... me, I'm not sure.

DD

Pete Dashwood

2005-08-25, 6:55 pm

"Joe Zitzelberger" <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:joe_zitzelberger-5A4AAD.23370924082005@ispnews.usenetserver.com...
>
> In article <3mlqn3F17386nU1@individual.net>,
> "Pete Dashwood" <dashwood@enternet.co.nz> wrote:
>
> Is it valid to express doubt about the manner in which doubt is resolved?
>
I doubt it... :-)

Pete

Howard Brazee

2005-08-25, 6:55 pm

On 24-Aug-2005, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:

> Isn't that one obvious. "Jaguar" has two syllables when spoken in
> English-US and three syllables when spoken in English-UK. See also
> similar "U" words ColoUr, HonoUr, Armour, et al.

Interesting, I know of the spellings for colour and honour, but was absolutely
unaware that Brits pronounced them with three syllables. I always assumed they
were just alternate spellings, like "theatre".

I'm trying to find a dictionary giving three syllable pronunciations of these
words, but failing.

Jeff York

2005-08-31, 7:55 am

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:

>
>On 24-Aug-2005, Joe Zitzelberger <joe_zitzelberger@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>Interesting, I know of the spellings for colour and honour, but was absolutely
>unaware that Brits pronounced them with three syllables.

We don't... :)

>.. I always assumed they
>were just alternate spellings, like "theatre".

Not "alternate"... "Correct". :)

--
Jeff. Ironbridge, Shrops, U.K.
jeff@xjackfieldx.org (remove the x..x round jackfield for return address)
and don't bother with ralf4, it's a spamtrap and I never go there.. :)

.... "There are few hours in life more agreeable
than the hour dedicated to the ceremony
known as afternoon tea.."

Henry James, (1843 - 1916).

docdwarf@panix.com

2005-08-31, 7:55 am

In article <p6vah1dporu1thu72ea0rrh5p890kcl47r@4ax.com>,
Jeff York <ralf4@btinternet.com> wrote:
>"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net> wrote:
>
>
>We don't... :)
>
>
>Not "alternate"... "Correct". :)

Not this again... might someone put period... errrrrr, put full stop to
this?

DD

Sponsored Links