From: Peter T. Daniels
Message: 5864
Date: 2005-09-03
>Fuck, as Seshat would not want me to say, off. (Referring, to clarify
> Peter T. Daniels wrote:
>
> > i
> > >
> > > Nor have you. But since I originally raised the issue, I will say this::
> >
> > Was I talking to you?
>
> Your message came to me by email, on a thread I have been actively
> participating.
>
> If you have a message aimed at only an individual, please email it to
> them directly. Otherwise, all messages on the list are public, you know
> that!
>
> Truth is, I wrote last night, but on reflection decided not to mail, a
> message noting that there have been many times you have left ambiguous
> antecedents, only to jump on someone in a nasty way when asking for
> clarification, or in this case for even deeming to get in the way of
> your target of the hour.
>
> Consider it noted publicly that you have a problem with antecedents, and
> that before sending messages, you might like to check the use of all of
> your pronouns from the point of view of a reader (also known as
> "editing") or else expect that sometimes you will be asked for
> clarifications.
>
> I consider the latter choice fair in an informal forum such as this.
>
> I also do *not* consider fair that you will, deliberately or not, write
> vaguely, as a means to draw people in for an insult. I am certain no one
> else does either.
>
> We all admire the rhetorical skill you display, I am sure, when you do
> that. Please give it a rest until there are new readers to show off to.
>
> >
> > And what did ME zip right to? Voice recognition software!!!! Sheesh.
>
> Hey, if you insist that the KB is no good, then all solutions for text
> input are on the table IMHO. If someone said they could use fMRI using a
> cheap device that was optimized for Vai, or perhaps a sensor that
> measures eye and head motion, to develop text input, well, that is all
> fair game. After all, I mentioned Morse code input as requiring only one
> key - and you didn't jump on me for suggesting that was a viable
> alternative for any language!
>
> >
> > Obviously it's political!!! What else could it be, when it's a question
> > of imposing imperialist cultures on indigenous peoples??
>
> Well, if you would re-read the messages in these threads with open eyes,
> you would see other opinions that are well thought out, even if you
> disagree with them.
>
> But the reason I asked you to clarify that is because if your true
> motive here is political, fine, OK, great, but at least it is now
> upfront and stated, and we know whether or not you are on topic for the
> list in general, or if we should send the thread to a list that deals
> more with the political ramification of technology and "cultural
> imperialism" (of which there are a great many respected ones, I am sure)
> Thanks for letting us know where you stand.Perhaps you aren't familiar with English pragmatics. The "Hunh?"
>
> > > Definitely not going to happen. Languages evolve over time to reflect
> > > their environment, and lately environments that have been heretofore
> > > isolated are becoming less so. The Bible notwithstanding,I don't think
> > > any of us are prepared to argue that all languages are static and
> > > originated exactly as they are.
> >
> > Hunh?
>
> It is plain English. Read it until you get it. I know you are capable.