🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <geoffmD6xnH6.DAD@netcom.com> geoffm@netcom.com (Geoff Miller) writes:
>Coercion has nothing to do with it, in either direction.  

Except that you are trying to claim the right to label other people's
use of the language wrong and pressure them into using it the way
you think is right.

>The context is 
>that of principle
[deletions]
>The fact is that these people are wrong (see below).

I find your postition of truth and certainty to be hightly debatable
and close minded.  What I object to most is self-appointed arbiters
of how people should speak.  Language is an evolving thing and people
should be free to use it as they see fit.  The only test is how well
one communicates, not use of the "right" worlds.
>
>You're missing the point.  Whether or not PC expressions such as "visually 
>impaired" or "developmentally disabled" are semantically inadequate isn't
>the issue.  The issue is the necessity and propriety of consciously replacing existing terms with new ones, as part of an attempt as social engineering,

I also think that this is silly.  I also am highly offended if someone
attempts to force me to use such terms.  Howerver, I think it is
equally offensive to try and force someone to not use the terms if
they want to.

>The terms "deaf" and "blind" were considered perfectly adequate by virtually everyone until recently, when it became _de rigeur_ to employ ridiculously
>circumspect terminology in the interest of "sensitivity."  

Considered by who?  Self appointed experts?  The definition of blind in 
my dictionary is "_unable_ to see".  The only other definitions have 
nothing to do with blindness but with idioms (like in "blind drunk").  
There are _no_ definitions (not even archaic ones) refering to partial 
blindness.  The fact is that, in spite of your pronouncements to the 
contrary, the term blind is not "perfectly" adequate.  If they 
don't want to use it, I don't see that anyone had the right to
tell them they can't.
>
>> (by the way, isn't "perfectly adequate" an oxymoron?  If you want to 
>> nitpick...)
>
>You're really grasping about for nits to pick, aren't you?  Could we 
>please stick to the matter at hand, or is that asking too much?  By
>stooping to such pettiness, you're only underscoring the essential
>untenability of your position.

I am, of course, doint this on purpose to drive home a point.  You
are engaging in just the same sort of petty nitpicking.  I am perfectly
willing to let your sloppy use of contradictory words go by without
an arrogant lecture if you are willing to do the same for people
who only have the flaw of not using your choice of words.

It is also interesting to read the above and then come across your
attempts to use a typo to score points.
>
>Lacking a qualifier, "blind" implies the partial or complete absence of
>vision,

Not by my dictionary (see above).

> not the ability to discern differences in color.  Color blindness
>is a different thing entirely.

And it is also true someone who is color blind could be described as
"vision impaired".  So clearly this is another example of how "blind"
is _not_ perfectly adequate to describe the situation.

[Deleted is more stuff on how what he feels is right is "generally is
assumed" which a) is debatable, and b) misses the point that others 
may not want rely on definitions which are "assumed"]

>> So the realy problem isn't pedantitry.  
>
>No; it's people who can't spell.  *snort*

Talk about "petty nitpicking"!  Trying to get mileage off of a typo?
*snort*  
I guess, from what you said above, that you wuould agree that
"By stooping to such pettiness,you're only underscoring the essential
untenability of your position."  If you don't want people to
pick at what you say, then don't pick at what they say.

This is fairly typical of people who set themselves up as "experts".
They berate others for standards they themselves can't meet.  Of
course what they are really trying to do is force their own pet
peeves on everyone else.

>> It people who want to impose their views on the language on who other 
>> people use it.
>
>And those who don't know how to employ contractions.

More petty nitpicking?  I breifly considered using a spell checker
or messing with this lousy editor to proof read, but I didn't think
you would stoop to try getting mileage out of typos.  (and I never
dreamed you would do so in the very same message where you complain 
abou such nitpicking.  At least I was trying to demonstrate a point).
>
>You keep coming back to this idea of coercion, don't you?  That's interesting;
>it offers a certain amount of insight into your oddly contentious mindset.

An interesting non-sequitur.  You try and tell people that their choice
of words is "wrong" and violates your "principles" and when I point
out that you really have no basis for trying to impose this standard
on them I'm being "contentious"?  

Perhaps you don't understand the word, since it could be fairly said
that since we are arguing we are both, by definition, being "contentious".
Of course I what is more likely happening is that you are stooping
to personal attacks to try and bolster you postion.  (and that is the
point that I usually don't bother with flame wars anymore, so I
am not likely to respond to your next message.  I have no doubt
that you will use the knowledge as an opportunity for more cheap
shots)
--
________________________
(Disclaimer: If NASA had any postion on any of this do you 
think they would have ME give it?)
David Summers - Summers@Ethyl-the-Frog.ARC.NASA.gov