Re: META: What's on-topic, and what's not [Re: CHAT translating t he Paternoster]

Quoting "Karapcik, Mike" <KarapcM@...>:

> | 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?
[snip]

>         I think Jeff was (rightly) telling the children to settle
> down before someone poked an eye out. (Mi bedauxras....)
Perhaps they should calm down.  And it is unquestionable that
people say things that are offensive (to me at least) on this
list every once in a while. But that's not the point.  The question
is whether we should have authorities on this list as to what
is and is not offensive or capable of turning in a flame war.
For the most part, this list has not proven to need one.  Little
things come up now and again (e.g. Christophe's and Boudewijn's
sometimes sarcastic discussion over the status of <ij>), but
almost always they burn out of their own accord.

My experience has been that it is far more profitable to express
strongly held disagreements off-list, and that is the principle
that I try to put into practice for myself.

=====================================================================
Thomas Wier          "...koruphàs hetéras hetére:isi prosápto:n /
Dept. of Linguistics  mú:tho:n mè: teléein atrapòn mían..."
University of Chicago "To join together diverse peaks of thought /
1010 E. 59th Street   and not complete one road that has no turn"
Chicago, IL 60637     Empedocles, _On Nature_, on speculative thinkers

Reply