Re: CHAT: Trial of the century?

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