Hi, Thorsten Glaser: > But Debian beings are not able to distinguish between disrespect > for actions made by some person (while at the same time holding > the person in, somewhat grudging, respect for the other things > they so) and disrespect for that person, all because they focus > on the language used nowadays. So tell me: how else you would distinguish between the two, if not by the language used? This is text email. We don't have anything else here. (Unless you resort to ASCII art.) NOTE: I don't focus on specific words here, four-letter or otherwise. The intent behind the words is what counts. I've been chastised myself, on this list, for using mostly-nice words in a decidedly-non-nice manner, and I'm trying to at least behave as if I had accepted that and was trying to do better next time. ;-) Also, even if "Debian beings" are currently unable to understand this distinction, which in the general case I doubt is true – do you really think this is an acceptable and/or $DEITY-ordained (and therefore unchangeable) state of affairs? > > > Is a proper language more useful than that "we"? > > In Debian, these days, yes. You can use language in a way which expresses that there _is_ (or at least might still be the possibility of) a "we" behind the disagreement you're addressing. … or not. -- -- Matthias Urlichs
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature