Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2005 09:28:26 +0000 From: Peter Risdon <peter@circlesquared.com> To: "freebsd-questions@freebsd.org" <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: mot de passe root Message-ID: <1111742906.756.260.camel@lorna.circlesquared.com> In-Reply-To: <4243342C.50809@eng.ufl.edu> References: <4241DBED.2050600@libertysurf.fr> <4240B2F7.5010805@bah.homeip.net> <126eac4805032323547e728023@mail.gmail.com> <1111654311.756.71.camel@lorna.circlesquared.com> <126eac48050324010546e5949@mail.gmail.com> <1111655431.756.77.camel@lorna.circlesquared.com> <4242DD2C.5030209@eng.ufl.edu> <1111685496.756.96.camel@lorna.circlesquared.com> <4242FD8F.2070801@eng.ufl.edu> <1111692868.756.130.camel@lorna.circlesquared.com> <4243342C.50809@eng.ufl.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 16:42 -0500, Bob Johnson wrote:
> Peter Risdon wrote:
> >
> >I have no idea why you're trying to misrepresent what I was saying.
It's
> >starting to feel mildly bizarre.
> >
> >Peter.
> >
> I am not trying to misrepresent anything, and I don't believe that I
am.
>
> From your initial posting:
>
> > Perhaps, though I'm not sure myself what is said in Russian to them
> > whereas I can read the French. But the reply in, I think, Swedish to
> > this question in French was a very good indication of what an
impossible
> > babel this or any other list would be if a single language were not
> > declared and respected.
Reading this again, it seems completely reasonable and obvious. I'm very
happy to stand by it.
> >
> > Peter
>
> If you were not saying that -questions should be an English-only list,
then
> which "single language" were you referring to?
The single language I referred to is of course English. But, my obtuse
friend, that's not the point at issue. It's the words *should be* and
*English-only* in your question. These are not my words but that doesn't
stop you trying to put them into my mouth. The simple fact is that
-questions _is_ an English language, as opposed to an English-only, list
(see below). You haven't noticed that? Hmmm...
Try reading the etiquette guide I quoted, from the FreeBSD website
(-questions is English in theory), and count the percentage of postings
in English, which is well above 99% (and English in practice). This is
pretty obvious stuff, Bob.
But people sometimes post in other languages and then other people try
to help them, including me if I feel competent. And that's great.
> How can I interpret your statement above to mean anything other than
> that you believe this should be an English-only list?
By reading it in a straightforward way and not trying to distort it for
your own, unfathomable, purposes.
> Are you arguing
> that "declaring and respecting" a single language is not the same as
> prohibiting other languages?
At last! That's right. This has absolutely nothing to do with
prohibition. Prohibition is imposed , respect is self-imposed. Again,
pretty obvious stuff.
People _are_ asked, politely, ("declaring") by FreeBSD.org, on their
website, in the bit about mailing lists, to use an appropriate language
for lists and it's entirely clear they mean English unless otherwise
stated.
I've quoted this to you since and I echoed it when someone seemed to be
calling for a _CHANGE_ in policy. I've already made that perfectly clear
[1]. I think the guidance on the website should be borne in mind by list
subscribers ("respecting").
That's why I say you are trying to misrepresent what I said. A list
moderator might prohibit non-English posts and that would create an
*English-only* list. I am absolutely not calling for that.
By contrast, individual posters might respect guidelines and in this
context that would make for an *English language* list. Nothing
authoritarian, just a guideline that people respect of their own
volition. There's nothing new about this idea - respecting guidelines is
a normal part of netiquette.
Now, remember that "declare" and "respect" were the words I used in my
initial posting, and you have demonstrated this by quoting them for me,
above. They have been there all along, clearly, and have nothing
whatsoever to do with the sort of authoritarianism you seem determined
to try to contrive from my words.
To repeat myself one last time, I was DISAGREEING with SOMEBODY ELSE who
seemed to be CALLING FOR A CHANGE. You are stating, falsely, that I
called for a change, then disagreeing with the change you are falsely
claiming I advocate. How pointless can you get?
This is already repetitious and must be deeply tedious to other
subscribers by now. I attempted, in my last post, to agree to disagree
in a friendly way with you. After all, we've both said our piece and
they are in the archives if anyone ever gives a damn. You have chosen to
ignore that amicable overture.
So I am going to spare subscribers the tedium of any further posts to
this thread.
Peter.
[1] From an earlier post:
On Thu, 2005-03-24 at 12:49 -0500, Bob Johnson wrote:
> >
>
> There is no call to splinter into many languages.
*sigh*
The starting point for this was a post which seemed to me to be doing
just that. If you interpret that posting differently, and you haven't
said whether you do, then that's our point of difference. Perhaps I
misread the OP, in which case there's nothing to discuss and
everything's fine and dandy.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?1111742906.756.260.camel>