| |
In lugnet.admin.nntp, Anders Isaksson writes:
> "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> skrev i meddelandet
> news:GF8s97.GDF@lugnet.com...
> > In lugnet.admin.nntp, Anders Isaksson writes:
> > > "Larry Pieniazek" <lpieniazek@mercator.com> skrev i meddelandet
> >
> > > > They should consider switching to the web mechanism or putting up with
> > > > the inconvenience
> > >
> > > Sweeping statements like this really raises my blood pressure! It's not for
> > > you to decide what is an option (or not) for other people - it's their
> > > choice or non-choice!
> >
> > I'm comfortable with *suggesting* that you switch. I don't see "should
> > consider" as a sweeping statment that is dictating anything to you or not.
>
> Might be a language issue, then. The first Swedish translation that came to
> mind was not *suggesting*, but quite a bit more imperatoresque (word?). Might
> be the 'should' - in Swedish you don't use that unless you mean imperative
> 'Should!, no options given'.
Yeh, that's a problem with Germanic languages other than
English--zullen/sollen/etc are modals that correspond to "should"
yet "should" also has the meaning of kunnen/koennen/etc. But
to make matters even cloudier, you *can* use "should" in the
imperative sense--depending on context--but that wasn't it. And
even if it *was*, the word after it was "consider." So even
if he had said "you MUST and WILL consider switching" that's
*still* not a demand that you switch. "Should" contained Larry's
own recommendation, of course--built into its semantics.
Boy, do I love English. :)
> > You know what? I participate in a LOT of communities that *only* offer a web
> > interface. People that can't or won't use a web interface are completely
> > disenfranchised. Completely.
>
> Well, that's a choice. I participate in a LOT of mailing lists, that don't
> have web interfaces (or paper versions). People without e-mail are completely
> disenfranchised (quite a word, that. What does it really mean in this context?
> My word book talks about losing voting rights...).
It imputes democratic values to a community. In the strictest
sense it's not 100% applicable, but there's poetic license at
work here. It means the same thing, in a sense--not being able
to have one's voice heard, regardless of desire.
One big problem with language dictionaries is that they're
shooting at a moving target, especially when English is involved.
English is particularly fluid and flexible, owing to the number of
people who are functional with it and thus have potential to
appropriate and modify its idioms artfully.
> > Maybe your beef is with your telephone company.
> > It oughtn't to be with Todd or anyone else here.
>
> It's not. My 'beef' is with everything that makes things _more_ troublesome,
> instead of making things easier. I don't say I have a solution, I just say
> Lugnet got much more irritating to use. If that view does not correspond with
> yours, so be it. But it's still one Lugnet users (not member, though) view,
> and should be valued as such.
Well, I for one can't disagree with that analysis. A new step
*has* been added to my reading and responding (the login), but
from my small provincial standpoint I don't think it's much more
to go through. YMMV, as you stated in another post, because it's
naturally going to be much much different from the email posters'
and NNTP readers' positions. The (pardon my qualitative) totally
stupid and counter-Internet way that European companies run local
phone service adds another layer of annoyance that's a lot harder
to shrug off without paying through the nose. Having lived there,
I can attest to this--it was cheaper for me to call the US than
to call a friend only 30km away! Freeeee-ky.
all best
LFB (now with a fat ol' ADSL pipe, as of this past Monday--that's
why I'm so unperturbed!)
FUT -> o-t.fun
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
42 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
