RK wrote in part:
Christopher Mahan wrote:
A slanderous innuendo? Where? I missed it? Dang...
I posted the quote in my letter, where Stevertigo explicitly accused me of promoting segregation against Chinese languages. (This is a really sick thing for someone to claim, by the way.)
I think the problem may be that some people have a hard time understanding why segregation of languages is a sick claim. It seems obvious to me that you support segregation of scripts (not *languages* as such) -- Latin script only on [[en:]]. I don't see why this is sick either; in fact, you've given good reasons.
Words like "segregation", "discrimination", and "inequality" are not dirty. This is not to say that SV isn't trying rhetorical tricks with them. But it's hard for people to judge that here on the lists. For instance, did he say that it followed that you were bigotted? ("racist", Susan Mason's word, is indefensible, I agree.)
A general principle: People should try to not offend others, and also people should try to not be offended by others. Not every offensive statement was intended to be offensive, which both readers and writers of statements should keep in mind.
(My personal opinion is that everyone should sign comments on [[en:]] with a signature whose Latin-1 portion serves to identify them uniquely. This includes anonymous users, who can at least sign "138.23.202.213". Accordingly, I add attributions to comments in talk pages that I edit. OTOH, this isn't vital to enforce, except perhaps for administrators. Thus, Stevertigo's compromise signature is OK, even with its Kanji, since only he uses ":sv" as the Latin-1 portion of his signature.)
-- Toby