On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 06:57:47PM +0200, "Steffen M?ller" wrote: > I am starting to enjoy this. > > On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 11:03:07PM +0000, Luca Filipozzi wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 07, 2012 at 12:23:21PM +0200, Enrico Zini wrote: > > > On Thu, Apr 05, 2012 at 10:32:21PM +0200, Francesca Ciceri wrote: > > > > > > > It doesn't matter how you define yourself or how others define > > > > you: we welcome you. We welcome contributions from everyone > > > > > > Moar nitpicking: s/define/perceive/g > > > > > > That gives: "It doesn't matter how you perceive yourself or how > > > others perceive you: we welcome you. > > > > > > This is after feedback from a respected friend on a private IRC > > > channel, who pointed out that the concept of "definitions" has > > > unwelcome connotations. > > > > The first 'define' might want to be 'identify' and the second > > 'perceive' for > > > > "It doesn't matter how you identify yourself or how others > > perceive you: we welcome you." > > > > Or possibly: > > > > "It doesn't matter how you choose to identify or how others > > perceive you: we welcome you." > > And what about a bit of a simplification: "It does not matter who you > or who others think you are: we welcome you." i wanted to put 'identify' into discussion but please don't interpret this reply as my being insistent on the point... 'define yourself' passed my initial filter! if i had to choose: - identify/perceive - perceive/perceive - think/think - define/define -- Luca Filipozzi
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature