Re: META: What's on-topic, and what's not [Re: CHAT translating t he Paternoster]
|From:||Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>|
|Date:||Friday, July 19, 2002, 3:20|
On Tue, 16 Jul 2002 17:51:07 -0400, Karapcik, Mike
>| -----Original Message-----
>| From: Thomas R. Wier
>| Subject: META: What's on-topic, and what's not [Re: CHAT
>| translating the Paternoster]
>| Quoting Jeff Jones <jeffsjones@...>:
>| > Both these texts are highly amusing ...
>| > but aren't we starting to stray into
>| > forbidden territory WRT the conlang list?
>| There is, in fact, only one statutorily forbidden area of
>| discussion for this list: the politics of constructed languages
>| (which is "best", which is "aesthetically pleasing", etc.).
> 8< snip >8
>| their religion even remotely. So why shouldn't we talk about
>| religion in this way?
>| Thomas Wier
> I think the concern is when the subjunctive vs. imperative
>("May there be light!" / "Let there be light!") triggered my comment
>of "May there be light!..." sounding like the beginning of a
>politically correct creation story.
> Next came the (IMO: *amazingly* funny) Standard Disclaimer for
>the Heavenly Hosts not accepting liability for use of the Universe,
>the Universe falling under Intellectual Property laws, no reverse
>engineering or decompiling, etc.
> I think Jeff was (rightly) telling the children to settle
>down before someone poked an eye out. (Mi bedauxras....)
> Mike K.
Yes, that's about it, Mike -- I'm glad someone was able to correctly
interpret my oracular statement. Thanks!
Sorry about the confusion, Tom. I probably should have quoted part of what
I was referring to. IMO nobody had actually crossed the line (statutory or
otherwise), but it was getting close. Concerning flame wars -- especially
the RaP kind (Religion and Politics) -- some of us have a real need to
avoid that kind of aggravation.