Theiling Online    Sitemap    Conlang Mailing List HQ   

Re: CHAT: Trial of the century?

From:vardi <vardi@...>
Date:Wednesday, January 20, 1999, 6:16
Thomas R. Wier wrote:
> > vardi wrote: > > > Has anyone else noticed a dramatic reduction in flow on the list over > > the last few days? > > Could it be that the American participants (and others) are glued to the > > televison watching the bizarre events from Washington DC? > > I don't want to be a party pooper, but I'd rather not get into yet another > discussion about politics here, especially since we'd be partitioning > ourselves > into national and subnational camps, which has nothing to do with > conlanging. > I particularly don't like the idea of using conlanging as subtle excuse to > discuss > these issues, so please, let's, for the rest of us, keep these to an > absolute minimum. >
Hi Tom. I very strongly resent having you tell me what I really meant or appropriating the right to declare that conlanging was a subtle excuse. I think that from the overall tone of my message (you chose to quote just a few lines) it was very, very clear that I was writing in a jovial, friendly and non-political manner. I was genuinely surprised by the sudden drop in the number of messages, and I genuinely thought that maybe the reason was that people were watching the developments from Washington. I suggested three sentences - which it's hard to imagine anyone could not see were phrased in a jocular manner - to try to get some fun conlang responses going and maybe start up a little thread. If you review the messages that came, you'll see that the majority took up that idea happily, discussing problems they had with a word for "cigar," explaining their word for "infidelity" and so on. I found it interesting and learned about peoples conlangs. The last time you complained I was political (the sodomy thread) there was much more in what you were saying, and I wrote quite a detailed, and I think very respectful, response, which you ignored. This time, in my opinion, I think you've gone over the line. I believe one should be able to express *almost* any view, but what I find COMPLETELY UNACCEPTABLE is to have someone start telling me what I meant, what I am thinking, what my real motives were. You say what you think, and I'll say what I think, OK? Given your long comments on PC, your effort now to establish so sharply permitted and non-permitted content, style and subjects on the list - according to your own personal preferences and inferences - is surprising to me. Shalom Shaul Vardi