Re: 3Com 3c982-TXM
On Mon, Jan 22, 2001 at 06:55:52PM +0100, Jason Quigley wrote:
> On Monday, January 22, 2001, at 06:15 PM, brian moore wrote:
> > Or are you forgetting your post in <E14JkeIfirstname.lastname@example.org>?
You claimed in private mail that was 'a taste of his own medicine'.
Perhaps that is exactly what Martin was giving to Christian?
See, you seem to have missed the actual thread:
Michelle posts with a bit of German in her post. One whole word.
This is message <email@example.com>.
Feel free to look it up.
Christian started his reply with: "ausruesten ist since which day a
english word? Please use proper english on this list, when you write to
it". This is <20010119225357.L457@seteuid.getuid.de>
Martin chides Christian by correcting his spelling and grammar.
Since you replied to this, I assume you have the message number.
I think 'chides' is the proper word for the tone of Martin's post:
it's not offensive, it doesn't get into stereotypes or name
You flame Martin for being a xenophobe and act as if Christian is
somehow being abused by mean old Martin and that Christian has some
inherent right to post poorly constructed spelling flames.
In context, Martin's post was on the mark. Christian's post, although
probably well intentioned (he did go on and provide help, after all,
he's not rude), was a bit harsh to Michelle.
So what is the point of your post? To flame Martin for daring to
suggest that Christian not so firmly demand 'proper english'? How does
that fit into your 'xenophobe' stereotype? In context, it doesn't.
Sure, completely devoid of context, Martin was being anal and petty.
I'm sure he'd admit that. But, that's why spelling flames and such
are -horrible- first-strike items but -great- to use in retaliation.
The only time when a spelling flame is acceptable is when it is in
-response- to a spelling flame.
The person who uses a spelling flame as first strike (as Christian
did), can -expect- to have the tables turned and their own post
criticized with exactly the same measure they demanded of others.
The person who responds doesn't even have to nail all the errors:
nailing just one is sufficient to prove that the so-called standards are
It's not 'xenophobic' for Martin to suggest that Christian live up to
his own standards before wishing them on others.
> Well smart arse, I never actually said that all English are
> xenophobes, I just said "Another English xenophobe" which I'm sure
> you'll have to agree is not the same. I merely implied that there
> was another one to add to the list of many.
So "Another lazy black" would be acceptable, since there certainly are
many lazy blacks (just as there are many lazy whites, asians, lefties
and probably lazy any-other-group-except-workaholics).
> > "I've met many lazy black people, so therefore, I have a right to call
> > any black man 'another lazy black'"
> Now, you're moving from bigotry, to downright racism!
Ah, so it's okay condemn people unfairly based upon their nationality,
but not okay to do so based on the color of their skin. After all, they
can't choose the color of their skin, but they, um, -can- choose their
nationality? Or, um, just what is your justification?
> BTW - This message got through just before I put you in my kill
> file. So, you're still there.
And from personal mail, since i'm too lazy (uhoh -- maybe I'm black,
eh?) to respond twice:
| I don't think you have much of a clue, do you? Spend a little more
| time outside your MUD games and you might see what really goes on.
ROM.ORG is my toy domain. I'll send this from another domain since it
somehow 'proves' something. (What does 'usa.net' prove about you?)