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

"Peter Lacey" <lacey@mts.net> wrote in message
news:430548E2.B7A1CB0B@mts.net...
> Ron wrote:
> 

> 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

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]
 

[snip]

>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 - o
r
>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

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.

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

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.

jce wrote:
>
> "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.
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 pa
st
> 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

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

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... 

> Ron was unhappy about Praveen's use of 'doubt'.  His comments were based o
n
> English usage and, although I wasn't personally annoyed,  (I have no probl
em
> 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" <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

"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.
 
>
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.