Quote:
Originally posted by John Klem
I have been a lurker for months but Mr Willson's doubletalk compels me to write. He tosses out words like prevaricate, prevarication, prevaricator, etc. ad nauseum and then gets upset when the targets of his arrows respond in kind. I had to look those words up in the dictionary and the bottom line definition of all of them is "lie or liar". Mr. Willson is the master of the innuendo, left handed compliment, and the subtle insult. He acts with innocent surprise when his targets respond in kind. I used to think that it was because he was from another country and he was being misunderstood. But after watching it play out on this and other forums on numerous occasions, I can only conclude that it is deliberate on his part. English is his first language. He is more literate than most writers. Other writers from other countries are able to post without offending anyone. It cannot be an accident that this happens to Mr. Willson so often. He should stop being surprised and offended by others reaction to his insults. He has had plenty of time to learn American ways.
|
Mr Klem, I don't KNOW you and despite the conclusions you have apparently drawn here I would have to say that you don't KNOW me either! There are just a couple of points to be made about your possibly premature decisions about me.
1. "
prevaricate v.i. speak or act evasively or misleadingly; quibble, equivocate;" [The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, 7th Ed] I have posted that definition to this forum before. I have even posted it in direct response to Mr Osborne. He is well aware of the Australian idiom for this term. He well knows that the term, when used by me, does NOT normally carry the connotation of LIAR as you have concluded.
2. I have posted many times that it is simply not reasonable to infer attitudes and emotions from a text medium, especially when our cultures and language are so significantly different. The "innuendo, left-handed compliment and the subtle insult" are such fine distinctions in language usage that I believe it is totally unfair to infer them from a text message. You simply cannot be sure that what you are READING is what was intended and WRITTEN by the author! The best recourse is to ASK! For example, "
Did you really mean to imply that I am both snide and arrogant, Mr Klem?"
3. I would have to ask what other writers, and from what other countries? Apart from a few Canadians, who have no doubt "lived" in close proximity with Americanisms for most of their lives, the vast majority of posters here appear to be American, and I can only make judgements about those who post. I can know little about the lurkers and neither, Mr Klem, can you. I must also ask why it must be only I that ought to "learn American ways"? Why shouldn't you equally be required and prepared to learn mine? As I have said before, I believe I am so frequently a target on these discussion boards because some people form an impression that my use of the language is "snooty", and so I too must be "snooty", or "superior" or "condescending". That is neither fair nor true, since that impression is formed from your own social source of reference. You'll just have to take my word for that. Try to look past your impressions, Mr Klem, and see only the words themselves.
Quote:
Mr. Willson, I believe, laid out some of his classic doubletalk in defining the acceptable limits. He said that "You are an idiot" is unacceptable but "That idea is idiotic." is OK. I maintain that both are equally hurtful and to say otherwise is to prevaricate. I like that word. When another student in the class calls you an idiot, you can brush it off. When the teacher calls you an idiot, you have a permanent label. The paid staff on eumpire have the halo of teacher attached to them. As such, their opinions carry more weight and their bullets do much more harm to their targets.
|
This is only a part of the picture, Mr Klem. I qualified by noting that to say "
That idea is idiotic" is acceptable
IF it is accompanied by a reason or explanation for that opinion. Without that reason or explanation, saying such a thing is merely a "discussion-ender" and not beneficial. Adding the reason, OTOH, opens the door for further discussion. I respect your right to your opinions, Mr Klem. Just please do not presume they are either the RIGHT or the ONLY opinions, no matter whether or not you are convinced of that yourself.
You further say that the "
paid staff on eumpire have the halo of teacher attached to them". Attached by whom? As Mr Childress explained, we are freelance contributors and staff writers. We are not "paid staff" in the sense that we are the salaried employees of eUmpire. We certainly are not salaried employees. I have NEVER asked to be considered as a "teacher", "expert" or even "Umpire royalty" as one poster recently proclaimed. Why should I be saddled with
your expectations in that regard? Why should I, along with the other staff writers, be held to any higher standard in my posts? Most of us are, of course, one way or another but that is certainly neither just nor of our choosing. I have publicly argued that case for months now.
I don't WANT your pedestal, Mr Klem. I certainly didn't ASK for your pedestal. If my posts or articles have somehow caused you to judge me to be in that elevated position, it has more to do with YOU and YOUR PERCEPTIONS than it does with ME. I am not willing to be cast in the role of "educator", "expert" or "doyen" if that means a declared "open season" on me and my ideas while I am required to surrender the right to return fire! I also do NOT deserve to be criticised, Mr Klem, for how
YOU have elected to perceive
ME or my "attitudes" from my posts. That is altogether unreasonable.
Cheers,
[Edited by Warren Willson on Feb 25th, 2001 at 05:00 AM]