Subject:
|
Re: Some US-like things about LUGNET (Was Re: Where did you lot spring from?)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.general
|
Date:
|
Wed, 3 May 2000 22:30:41 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1465 times
|
| |
|
|
Quick wee nitpicks from a USian with Canadian and British affinities:
Paul Baulch wrote:
> Still, LUGNET on the whole feels fairly US-oriented to me, and there are two
> major causes of this. ...<snip>
>
> The first aspect is the level of moderation. Being an adult, living in a
> culture that is NOT an American culture (despite being, as people say,
> somewhat Americanised), I feel irritation at being hampered by guidelines
> regarding profanity that are so far into the wholesome family end of the
> spectrum as to feel, frankly, ridiculous. If I wish to give any emotionally
> emphasis or expressiveness I am forced to use a limited set of the most
> firmly US-entrenched slang such as "darned", and can only use words such as
> "God" in a religious sense (or for reference as I just did). In my culture
> we say "bloody" about as often as USians seem to use "darned", but of course
Here's the nitpick: the injunction against "bloody" has entirely to do with the
British (primarily the English)--it doesn't offend any US-born Americans that I
know. It's not a matter of US puritanism (I'm convinced that most of that is a
myth, although whether it's our myth or a myth propigated in the rest of the
world is still in the air) but a matter of playing to the safest common
denominator for all. Don't assume it's all US; but by the same token, keep in
mind that in the English-speaking world the US tail wags the dog because of
sheer demographics--there's almost 300 million USians, ~250 million of whom are
fluent speakers of English (however one defines that in the US, can you tell
I've been grading student papers again?).
And if you make the connection that profanity = colour, you're not being
creative enough. ;) I think .loc.au, which I enjoy reading very much--I agree
100% with Paul's extolling of stream-of-consciousness threads--is wonderfully
colourful without resorting to vulgarities.
The second issue, that of constructive criticism, isn't a matter of being
US-centered. If anything, I'd say that most of the criticism I receive on my
MOCs comes out of the US--and I do give constructive criticism. Why do you
think that it's a sign of US-centricity? If you go by sheer volume you have to
run it through the above-mentioned demographic filter, to account for the
plurality of US-based Lugnetters, before you can draw reliable conclusions.
I agree with Paul and others that we should be conscious of how the centre of
Lugnet is perceived, and that it is gravitated towards the US--but I disagree
that the above two points are themselves indicative of where that centre is.
best
LFB (wondering about XFUTting this to .admin.general...?)
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Where did you lot spring from?)
|
| (...) LOL! Ever noticed, even on LUGNET, that many of the non-native speakers of English use better grammer than quite a few Americans? Every now and then, some obscure idiom slips in, but otherwise, I must commend you ESLers on your proficiency[1]! (...) (25 years ago, 3-May-00, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
72 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
