Pizza Puzzle wrote: I would like to note that I agree with you. Prague
should be henceforth >"Praha"; just as the German cities should be written in German. Two points were made >against you:
A) The Christopher Columbus issue; one should note that whether Cristoforo
or Cristobal >is used; either one is infinitely more correct that Christopher since Colombo, himself, used >both the Spanish and Italian versions BUT NEVER the English version which is wholly >fallacious.
Well, I tend to agree. It does however bring into mind the possibility that asserting such "policy" as i suggested (aside from contradicting my long standing dislike for propriety) would not be really practical. Maybe this would be a far better argument against. The argument for really relies on a change of convention, like I said - namely something that would be somewhat revolutionary. The question then is implementation - would it be too confusing? Could it be a way to enhance cross-lingual communication?
I finally realized that this really was about attempting to break down the language barriers - allowing some easier cross-operability that ignores the established language barriers, allowing for some compromises in our much-hailed "standards" -- but also allowing for increased multi-lingual participation. This is no doubt the future of wikipedia, but it would require some heavy assistance from language tools -- technologies that are barely in their fruition.
It could be after all, that the solution is simply for all these miserable foreigners to just learn English gooder.
B) The Los Angeles issue in which one user sarcastically stated that we
should revert to >the Native American name. Such a reversion would not be in accordance with your more >reasonable suggestion since Los Angeles was essentially built on top of the older city, in a >like manner, Mexico DF should not be renamed Tenochtitlan.
All such arguments were red herring attacks, summat. But GTBOTD* they attempt to illustrate the fuzzy boundaries inherent to drawing lines to differentiate changes to how things are done. In essence I agree with them - 'dont mess with it if it aint broke.' To a large degree I threw it out there to see what the climate was, and what the real idea was that I was trying to materialize. I had it saved as a draft and decided to send it - to see if it would stir some braincells. Not that I intent to fight a one man war for something so stupid and trivial as policy. In short - they were abolutely correct, though their arguments were a bit convoluted.
The funny thing in that case, is that it actually illustrates my point. "Los Angeles" isnt changed in American speech to "The Angels" -- nor to Americans call most other Latin based names by anything different, simply due to some language similarities. In fact, in most cases the Anglicization is rather loyal - thus its the minority that are modified, and then usually only slightly. To change the minority to their proper local names, would be to actually enforce the existing *standard. (something again I dont advocate). "Roma" instead of "Rome" -- 'would be too confusing?' I dont think so. These are the same arguments against the deprication of the term "Indians" to refer to American Natives. Tie that in with the Christoforo Colombo factor, and youll get the joke.
In secret correspondence with certain unnamed individuals, I have been
informed that you >are now classed as a "true troll" and are walking on "very thin ice". Good luck, viva la >resistance!
As it should be. I wonder if theyre using Danny's once-stated definition of a troll - here on the list. "Very thin ice?" I was on "very thin ice" from the day I started contributing. This later became "good job on this" and "good job on that." People get pissy, and I dont give out blowjobs - thats what that means. All of humanity is on thin ice, so its like the pot calling the kettle... "nigga!"
BTW, IMHO, "Troll" is almost like the internet equivalent of calling someone a "terrorist" - 'I saw you marching at a peace rally, you terrorist...' It's a very slippery slope, and some here have gotten quite quick to use the T word, (at least in private :]) it seems they never understood the late, great, Robert Zimmerman when he said... "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin."
-Wove and trolling, Steven
*GTBOTD Given the benefit of the doubt.
--- Stevertigo stevertigo@attbi.com wrote:
Pizza Puzzle wrote: I would like to note that I
agree with you. Prague should be henceforth >"Praha"; just as the German cities should be written in German. Two points were made >against you:
A) The Christopher Columbus issue; one should note
that whether Cristoforo or Cristobal >is used; either one is infinitely more correct that Christopher since Colombo, himself, used >both the Spanish and Italian versions BUT NEVER the English version which is wholly >fallacious.
Well, I tend to agree. It does however bring into mind the possibility that asserting such "policy" as i suggested (aside from contradicting my long standing dislike for propriety) would not be really practical. Maybe this would be a far better argument against. The argument for really relies on a change of convention, like I said - namely something that would be somewhat revolutionary. The question then is implementation - would it be too confusing? Could it be a way to enhance cross-lingual communication?
I finally realized that this really was about attempting to break down the language barriers - allowing some easier cross-operability that ignores the established language barriers, allowing for some compromises in our much-hailed "standards" -- but also allowing for increased multi-lingual participation. This is no doubt the future of wikipedia, but it would require some heavy assistance from language tools -- technologies that are barely in their fruition.
It could be after all, that the solution is simply for all these miserable foreigners to just learn English gooder.
If they don't know English, they should be working on a non-english wikipedia, not asserting the italian name for someone.
B) The Los Angeles issue in which one user
sarcastically stated that we should revert to >the Native American name. Such a reversion would not be in accordance with your more >reasonable suggestion since Los Angeles was essentially built on top of the older city, in a
like manner, Mexico DF
should not be renamed Tenochtitlan.
All such arguments were red herring attacks, summat. But GTBOTD* they attempt to illustrate the fuzzy boundaries inherent to drawing lines to differentiate changes to how things are done. In essence I agree with them - 'dont mess with it if it aint broke.' To a large degree I threw it out there to see what the climate was, and what the real idea was that I was trying to materialize. I had it saved as a draft and decided to send it - to see if it would stir some braincells. Not that I intent to fight a one man war for something so stupid and trivial as policy. In short - they were abolutely correct, though their arguments were a bit convoluted.
The arguments against your suggested policy change didn't seem to me to be convoluted at all.
The funny thing in that case, is that it actually illustrates my point. "Los Angeles" isnt changed in American speech to "The Angels" -- nor to Americans call most other Latin based names by anything different, simply due to some language similarities. In fact, in most cases the Anglicization is rather loyal - thus its the minority that are modified, and then usually only slightly. To change the minority to their proper local names, would be to actually enforce the existing *standard. (something again I dont advocate). "Roma" instead of "Rome" -- 'would be too confusing?' I dont think so. These are the same arguments against the deprication of the term "Indians" to refer to American Natives. Tie that in with the Christoforo Colombo factor, and youll get the joke.
But there is a diffence. Rome, Indians, Native Americans, and Christopher Colombus are English words (or anglicised names) and are what people speaking *English* use. If you are working on the latin or spanish Wikipedia, you can use the latin or spanish names, but the English wikipedia is for English.
In secret correspondence with certain unnamed
individuals, I have been informed that you >are now classed as a "true troll" and are walking on "very thin ice". Good luck, viva la >resistance!
As it should be. I wonder if theyre using Danny's once-stated definition of a troll - here on the list. "Very thin ice?" I was on "very thin ice" from the day I started contributing. This later became "good job on this" and "good job on that." People get pissy, and I dont give out blowjobs - thats what that means. All of humanity is on thin ice, so its like the pot calling the kettle... "nigga!"
BTW, IMHO, "Troll" is almost like the internet equivalent of calling someone a "terrorist" - 'I saw you marching at a peace rally, you terrorist...' It's a very slippery slope, and some here have gotten quite quick to use the T word, (at least in private :]) it seems they never understood the late, great, Robert Zimmerman when he said... "don't speak too soon for the wheel's still in spin."
-Wove and trolling, Steven
Well, I guess I agree on that last point.
But isn't it obvious that Pizza Puzzle is just joining this debate to cause conflict?
__________________________________ Do you Yahoo!? SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month! http://sbc.yahoo.com
|LittleDan wrote: Well, I guess I agree on that last point. | | But isn't it obvious that Pizza Puzzle is just joining | this debate to cause conflict?
Well, of the two - conflict or consensus, which can actually be "caused"?
-SM
At 01:18 PM 6/24/03 -0700, Stevertigo wrote:
|LittleDan wrote: Well, I guess I agree on that last point. | | But isn't it obvious that Pizza Puzzle is just joining | this debate to cause conflict?
Well, of the two - conflict or consensus, which can actually be "caused"?
Both, of course.
| >| But isn't it obvious that Pizza Puzzle is just joining | >| this debate to cause conflict? | > | > | >Well, of the two - conflict or consensus, which can actually be "caused"? | | Vicki:Both, of course.
Ha. Nope, sorry. This is related to that old principle... (via Dr. Phil ;) noone can "make" you mad... they can do something that would in 10 out of 11 billion people would result in an angry response, but thats not a "make".
Can you suggest consensus? Yes. Can you attempt to cause conflict? Certainly... But theres a step in the middle there that people miss. An analogy would be: (as people have often stated ) "We fight to protect our freedom" Conquest equals freedom? Dont think so. Conquest = Wealth = Material freedom/perception of freedom/relative freedom... etc. Thats perhaps more correct.
-SM-
On Tue, 2003-06-24 at 17:08, Stevertigo wrote:
| >| But isn't it obvious that Pizza Puzzle is just joining | >| this debate to cause conflict? | > | > | >Well, of the two - conflict or consensus, which can actually be "caused"? | | Vicki:Both, of course.
Ha. Nope, sorry. This is related to that old principle... (via Dr. Phil ;) noone can "make" you mad... they can do something that would in 10 out of 11 billion people would result in an angry response, but thats not a "make".
Can you suggest consensus? Yes. Can you attempt to cause conflict? Certainly... But theres a step in the middle there that people miss. An analogy would be: (as people have often stated ) "We fight to protect our freedom" Conquest equals freedom? Dont think so. Conquest = Wealth = Material freedom/perception of freedom/relative freedom... etc. Thats perhaps more correct.
Can you make yourself mad? If so, then someone can make you mad.
| | Can you make yourself mad? If so, then someone can make you mad.
Well I can *drive myself mad... but thats not making me mad... is it?
:)-SV
At 04:12 PM 6/24/2003, you wrote:
| | Can you make yourself mad? If so, then someone can make you mad.
Well I can *drive myself mad... but thats not making me mad... is it?
I can make people mad... I can also make consensus... then again, I /am/ possessed of the power of the Loc-Nar, so I have abilities beyond those of mere mortals.
http://www.villainsupply.com/superpowers.html (scroll to the bottom)
----- Dante Alighieri dalighieri@digitalgrapefruit.com
"The darkest places in hell are reserved for those who maintain their neutrality in times of great moral crisis." -Dante Alighieri, 1265-1321
John R. Owens wrote:
Stevertigo wrote:
Ha. Nope, sorry. This is related to that old principle... (via Dr. Phil ;) noone can "make" you mad... they can do something that would in 10 out of 11 billion people would result in an angry response, but thats not a "make".
Can you make yourself mad? If so, then someone can make you mad.
Yes, literally that is correct. SV should say that no one /else/ can make you mad.
Although I disagree with SV's point all the same. It's valid to note (as Dr. Phil wants to do) that you have the power to influence your own emotions, despite what other people may try to do to you. But at the same time, this doesn't mean that the other people are therefore blameless, which is the conclusion that Steve seems to draw.
-- Toby
| Although I disagree with SV's point all the same. | It's valid to note (as Dr. Phil wants to do) | that you have the power to influence your own emotions, | despite what other people may try to do to you. | But at the same time, this doesn't mean that | the other people are therefore blameless, | which is the conclusion that Steve seems to draw. | -- Toby
I never claim to *draw any conclusions. I'll paint you a picture, maybe. -SM-
At 03:08 PM 6/24/03 -0700, you wrote:
| >| But isn't it obvious that Pizza Puzzle is just joining | >| this debate to cause conflict? | > | > | >Well, of the two - conflict or consensus, which can actually be "caused"? | | Vicki:Both, of course.
Ha. Nope, sorry. This is related to that old principle... (via Dr. Phil ;) noone can "make" you mad... they can do something that would in 10 out of 11 billion people would result in an angry response, but thats not a "make".
You and Dr. Phil are both wrong. If you toss a grenade into a crowd, you are causing conflict. Claiming that you haven't is merely an attempt to deny your responsibility for your actions.
Vicki wrote:
You and Dr. Phil are both wrong. If you toss a grenade into a crowd, you are causing conflict. Claiming that you haven't is merely an attempt to deny your responsibility for your actions.
Boy, this is getting a bit philosophical. :-)
I would say, in our context, that there are responsibilities for all parties. There's a responsibility not to cause conflict as much as we can, and there's also a responsibility not to let a conflict-causer upset us as much as we can.
For me, when I fail in these things[1], it does me a world of good to think globally and big picture about what we're trying to do here, to get in tune with the vision. This helps me to see most of our day-to-day struggles in the proper context, and to fully appreciate how wonderful everyone is who is working together on this.
Even when we disagree, we're still wikipedians. And we should try not to upset each other, and try not to be upset by each other.
--Jimbo
[1] For example, I regret snapping at Julie about her comments on Ayn Rand.
| Even when we disagree, we're still wikipedians. And we should try not | to upset each other, and try not to be upset by each other. | | --Jimbo | | [1] For example, I regret snapping at Julie about her comments on Ayn | Rand.
Jimbos exactly correct - and doubly so in bringing the discussion down to the wikiEarth. But on Vicki's point - grenades have nothing to do with it. And they dont invoke "anger" per se. They may cause people to be blown to bits, or stunned, or maimed. They may in a chain of causal events proke swift, blinding retaliation - or cold calculated carnage, but "anger" has still yet to enter the picture. Lets be civilized.
-Dr. Steve-