- Site menu:
- Latest Discussions
- Latest Newswire
- Archives
- Submit Story
- Story HOWTO
- Syndicate
- E-mail Alerts
House vote on illegal images sweeps in Wi-Fi, Web sites
|
|
|
Comments (69)
the thread is gone, but the story stays?
10 earlier comments in the full thread.
Just to toss it out there, politically my leanings are with Bob and jd, my thoughts on if LXer is the proper forum to engage in those conversations?? I have to go with Scott on this one. Over the last few months it has become decidedly political around here. Which is fine if restraint is exercised and kept to F/OSS, but discussion of the political landscape in general ... truly does belong elsewhere, IMHO.
I never saw the thread, but I will provide a warning to everyone here.
Whether you like it or not, you will encounter politics, period! Whether you like it or not, because sooner or later, they will come to you, even if you decide not to directly address it. That is my two cents on the subject matter. I would say mentioning said political candidate may have been related to the article itself (in which said candidate was opposed to said bill, and hence voted against it).
Politicaphobia: fear of anything political. I'm starting to see it spread, and it's not good for anyone, no matter what field you're in.
Whether you like it or not, you will encounter politics, period! Whether you like it or not, because sooner or later, they will come to you, even if you decide not to directly address it. That is my two cents on the subject matter. I would say mentioning said political candidate may have been related to the article itself (in which said candidate was opposed to said bill, and hence voted against it).
Politicaphobia: fear of anything political. I'm starting to see it spread, and it's not good for anyone, no matter what field you're in.
>Politicaphobia: fear of anything political. I'm starting to see it spread, and it's not good for anyone, no matter what field you're in.
Human nature makes it even worse than that.
There is a tendency not to recognize politics in those things that you agree with. They're not political, they are just the facts, things that any sensible person ought to be able to see. Counter something that was said, and suddenly you hear, "We have a no-politics rule" or some such thing.
"No politics" ends up meaning, in fact, "no politics that I don't like".
Human nature makes it even worse than that.
There is a tendency not to recognize politics in those things that you agree with. They're not political, they are just the facts, things that any sensible person ought to be able to see. Counter something that was said, and suddenly you hear, "We have a no-politics rule" or some such thing.
"No politics" ends up meaning, in fact, "no politics that I don't like".
I'm trying to find anyone who lives in San Antonio.
Dino, I have no desire to get into a confrontational discussion with you, but you and others have made several comments that are worth addressing.
In your posts in this thread, you say "illuminating the fact that somebody voted our way is not out of line.", ""No politics" ends up meaning, in fact, "no politics that I don't like"." and "Lxer used to be a good site. Seems determined to spiral its way into irrelevance."
I totally agree that bringing attention to the fact that Ron Paul voted like many people who visit LXer(including me) would have voted on that issue but that was not all that was being discussed in the thread.
If the statement "Its harder to see politics in things I agree with" is contained inside your statement, then yes most of the time "No politics" ends up meaning, in fact, "no politics that I don't like". The problem is that if it were true here at LXer then why would I delete a thread about that article? Especially if I agree with that particular politician's actions reported on in that article? Your statement fails to hold water with regards to LXer.
As for your statement about LXer's spiral into irrelevance, I respectfully disagree. I will not waste your time trying to convince you otherwise. No one makes you visit LXer, it is your choice too.
To Everyone,
Is it a two edged sword that we do not allow discussions of a political nature yet report on political issues when they concern FOSS? Of course. I will admit that "Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature is not allowed on the site." most certainly could be expanded and clarified but then just how?
Making that statement more specific would no doubt lead to even more trouble than its current ambiguity does. So it comes down to a judgment call, made by me, based on what I see people saying in the threads and how I interpret the intentions of the people writing it.
I cannot apologize for my decision, I was doing my job. I swear to all who can hear I am doing my best to uphold the TOS as fairly as I know how. I am trying my best to keep LXer a place where people come to get the news on FOSS and talk to others about it. Am I perfect, or ever going to be? of course not, but as I said I am doing my best. If that equates to 'Politicaphobia' in your mind, there is nothing I can do or say that will change your opinion.
It was said in this thread and has been said to me more than once recently that it has gotten very political around here at times and the only person who can be blamed for letting it happen is me. As a result I have tried to be more vigilant in taking action on it. As Editor-in-Chief I have to be the 'heavy' around here when need be, it's my job.
I am more than open to constructive input on this. If you really do care about making LXer better and I think you do because of the of emotions this issue has evoked, then try and help me. Even if you disagree with my actions regarding it. If there is a way to make the TOS more clear on this issue or anything that can help those who visit LXer to understand what is allowed and not allowed in the forums, I am all ears.
In your posts in this thread, you say "illuminating the fact that somebody voted our way is not out of line.", ""No politics" ends up meaning, in fact, "no politics that I don't like"." and "Lxer used to be a good site. Seems determined to spiral its way into irrelevance."
I totally agree that bringing attention to the fact that Ron Paul voted like many people who visit LXer(including me) would have voted on that issue but that was not all that was being discussed in the thread.
If the statement "Its harder to see politics in things I agree with" is contained inside your statement, then yes most of the time "No politics" ends up meaning, in fact, "no politics that I don't like". The problem is that if it were true here at LXer then why would I delete a thread about that article? Especially if I agree with that particular politician's actions reported on in that article? Your statement fails to hold water with regards to LXer.
As for your statement about LXer's spiral into irrelevance, I respectfully disagree. I will not waste your time trying to convince you otherwise. No one makes you visit LXer, it is your choice too.
To Everyone,
Is it a two edged sword that we do not allow discussions of a political nature yet report on political issues when they concern FOSS? Of course. I will admit that "Discussion and debate of a political or religious nature is not allowed on the site." most certainly could be expanded and clarified but then just how?
Making that statement more specific would no doubt lead to even more trouble than its current ambiguity does. So it comes down to a judgment call, made by me, based on what I see people saying in the threads and how I interpret the intentions of the people writing it.
I cannot apologize for my decision, I was doing my job. I swear to all who can hear I am doing my best to uphold the TOS as fairly as I know how. I am trying my best to keep LXer a place where people come to get the news on FOSS and talk to others about it. Am I perfect, or ever going to be? of course not, but as I said I am doing my best. If that equates to 'Politicaphobia' in your mind, there is nothing I can do or say that will change your opinion.
It was said in this thread and has been said to me more than once recently that it has gotten very political around here at times and the only person who can be blamed for letting it happen is me. As a result I have tried to be more vigilant in taking action on it. As Editor-in-Chief I have to be the 'heavy' around here when need be, it's my job.
I am more than open to constructive input on this. If you really do care about making LXer better and I think you do because of the of emotions this issue has evoked, then try and help me. Even if you disagree with my actions regarding it. If there is a way to make the TOS more clear on this issue or anything that can help those who visit LXer to understand what is allowed and not allowed in the forums, I am all ears.
Keep up the good work Scott. I personally think it is blindingly obvious when inappropriate political content is introduced into a thread: The thread is usually derailed and the lack of respect (on both sides) palpable.
Politics and FOSS are intertwined so cannot be entirely avoided. Commonsense however tells us when deliberate partisanship is introduced. Examples:
1) Liberals/Conservatives are morons because they cannot understand why Michael Moore/Ann Coulter is dreadful
2) Support by politician X for ensuring public schools deploy FOSS in country Y is noteworthy and admirable.
Guess which politics is appropriate and which is not?
It seems to me that there is a degree of the disingenuous going on about all of this....
Politics and FOSS are intertwined so cannot be entirely avoided. Commonsense however tells us when deliberate partisanship is introduced. Examples:
1) Liberals/Conservatives are morons because they cannot understand why Michael Moore/Ann Coulter is dreadful
2) Support by politician X for ensuring public schools deploy FOSS in country Y is noteworthy and admirable.
Guess which politics is appropriate and which is not?
It seems to me that there is a degree of the disingenuous going on about all of this....
Quoting:Politicaphobia: fear of anything political. I'm starting to see it spread, and it's not good for anyone, no matter what field you're in.
I believe it was Aristotle who said "Engage in politics, otherwise risk being ruled by inferiors", or something like that.
Montezuma -
Bingo. You got it right.
And did you notice the difference has nothing to do with party/leaning/view/etc?
It has everything to do with uncivil and abusive discourse. I might disagree with you if, for example, you said that Bush administration policies slow the uptake of FOSS. I would not object to you saying that -- I would probably ask you to elaborate.
Not so in the case of a statement that FOSS can't possibly flourish in a country with a chimp in the White House.
Bingo. You got it right.
And did you notice the difference has nothing to do with party/leaning/view/etc?
It has everything to do with uncivil and abusive discourse. I might disagree with you if, for example, you said that Bush administration policies slow the uptake of FOSS. I would not object to you saying that -- I would probably ask you to elaborate.
Not so in the case of a statement that FOSS can't possibly flourish in a country with a chimp in the White House.
>Not so in the case of a statement that FOSS can't possibly flourish in a country with a chimp in the White House.
Right. Or on the other side:
"Venezuela could not possibly be doing anything sane with FOSS since it is ruled by that loudmouth lunatic Marxist Hugo Chavez"
All pretty obvious really......
Right. Or on the other side:
"Venezuela could not possibly be doing anything sane with FOSS since it is ruled by that loudmouth lunatic Marxist Hugo Chavez"
All pretty obvious really......
Scott -
Part of the problem is in seeing "confrontational" things every time you see differing viewpoints.
Look how you started this out:
>Dino, I have no desire to get into a confrontational discussion with you,
Why would you need to? Maybe you're feeling a bit jumpy here. There's not need. As I said, sometimes the best thing is simply to relax.
US Constitutional law -- though it doesn't apply here -- has addressed similar issues wrt speech restrictions in public spaces and/or by agents of the government.
As an example, imagine a pro-life group that wishes to picket a public hospital. The hospital has every right to place reasonable restrictions on how close those people can come and when they can picket -- so long as the restrictions are properly scoped (ie no pickets in the emergency room, not pickets within 100 yards of the hospital, nobody after certain hours or whatever) and are content-neutral. In other words, any restrictions applied to pro-life protesters would also be applied to cottage cheese protesters or Hannah Montana fans.
The beauty of that approach is that it keeps the government out of the business of deciding what is or is not political, religious, appropriate, inappriate, etc. You can do x for y hours in z location so long as you're not so loud you wake babies two towns over. Or whatever.
>the only person who can be blamed for letting it happen is me.
Anyone who would say that to you is being incredibly unfair. As an editor of a site that permits outside comments, you can't force the direction of a conversation the way the editor of a paid staff can.
You can nudge it, you can keep it civil, or you can delete it. It's like being a surgeon whose only tools are aspirin and a chain saw. You have to hope the patient responds to the inadequate treatment because the other one is brutal and has unwelcome consequences.
Part of the problem is in seeing "confrontational" things every time you see differing viewpoints.
Look how you started this out:
>Dino, I have no desire to get into a confrontational discussion with you,
Why would you need to? Maybe you're feeling a bit jumpy here. There's not need. As I said, sometimes the best thing is simply to relax.
US Constitutional law -- though it doesn't apply here -- has addressed similar issues wrt speech restrictions in public spaces and/or by agents of the government.
As an example, imagine a pro-life group that wishes to picket a public hospital. The hospital has every right to place reasonable restrictions on how close those people can come and when they can picket -- so long as the restrictions are properly scoped (ie no pickets in the emergency room, not pickets within 100 yards of the hospital, nobody after certain hours or whatever) and are content-neutral. In other words, any restrictions applied to pro-life protesters would also be applied to cottage cheese protesters or Hannah Montana fans.
The beauty of that approach is that it keeps the government out of the business of deciding what is or is not political, religious, appropriate, inappriate, etc. You can do x for y hours in z location so long as you're not so loud you wake babies two towns over. Or whatever.
>the only person who can be blamed for letting it happen is me.
Anyone who would say that to you is being incredibly unfair. As an editor of a site that permits outside comments, you can't force the direction of a conversation the way the editor of a paid staff can.
You can nudge it, you can keep it civil, or you can delete it. It's like being a surgeon whose only tools are aspirin and a chain saw. You have to hope the patient responds to the inadequate treatment because the other one is brutal and has unwelcome consequences.
> that loudmouth lunatic Marxist Hugo Chavez
Hey, come on! It's still within the species!
Hey, come on! It's still within the species!
Dino, just the act of writing my post did wonders to relax and center me. I had to preface my statement because I would rather you think I am jumpy than to misinterpret the comments that followed.
I do understand what you mean when you say "relax", unfortunately conversations can get out of hand while I try to relax about it.
I am not patronizing you, please understand that sometimes I cannot relax and wait for the dust to settle, so to speak.
I do understand what you mean when you say "relax", unfortunately conversations can get out of hand while I try to relax about it.
I am not patronizing you, please understand that sometimes I cannot relax and wait for the dust to settle, so to speak.
>that sometimes I cannot relax and wait for the dust to settle, so to speak.
When all you've got is aspirin and a chain saw, one hopes for those times to be few and far between.
When all you've got is aspirin and a chain saw, one hopes for those times to be few and far between.
> Hey, come on! It's still within the species!
Yes but recent evidence from Japan suggests chimps have significantly superior memory to humans....
Yes but recent evidence from Japan suggests chimps have significantly superior memory to humans....
Scott:
No one's blaming you for taking action as an editor. I think we all realize that's necessary. I'm only questioning whether it was necessary in this case, and in the final analysis, that's a judgment you have to make, no me. The ideal is that the feedback will help you get a better handle on exactly when deletion is necessary and when it isn't.
Of course, deciding when we have a legitimate point and when we're just carping for no reason is yet another judgment call. :)
No one's blaming you for taking action as an editor. I think we all realize that's necessary. I'm only questioning whether it was necessary in this case, and in the final analysis, that's a judgment you have to make, no me. The ideal is that the feedback will help you get a better handle on exactly when deletion is necessary and when it isn't.
Of course, deciding when we have a legitimate point and when we're just carping for no reason is yet another judgment call. :)
> Yes but recent evidence from Japan suggests chimps have significantly superior memory to humans
Caveat: Young chimps have superior memory to adult humans.
Young humans have superior memory to adult humans too. It's questionable whether their tests revealed differences between species or were merely an indication of age.
Caveat: Young chimps have superior memory to adult humans.
Young humans have superior memory to adult humans too. It's questionable whether their tests revealed differences between species or were merely an indication of age.
jdixon,
I saw the test on TV. It wasn't even close. Chimps were vastly superior. More so than my 3 year old daughter I'm sure.
Edit: The interpretation I saw was that humans had given up memory in order to gain language skills.
I saw the test on TV. It wasn't even close. Chimps were vastly superior. More so than my 3 year old daughter I'm sure.
Edit: The interpretation I saw was that humans had given up memory in order to gain language skills.
> Chimps were vastly superior. More so than my 3 year old daughter I'm sure.
You're probably underestimating your 3 year old daughter, but I'll take your word for it.
You're probably underestimating your 3 year old daughter, but I'll take your word for it.
Scott,
I personally think you do a great job and appreciate you for it.
Everyone Else,
One thing that gets under my skin is what I like to call drive-by TOS violations. I hate it when I see a post like this...
My 2 cents.
I personally think you do a great job and appreciate you for it.
Everyone Else,
One thing that gets under my skin is what I like to call drive-by TOS violations. I hate it when I see a post like this...
Quoting:Blah blah blah relevant on-topic discussion blah blah blah.Then, if anyone calls the poster on the OBVIOUS TOS violation, he/she gets all preachy about how their post was on-topic. Puh-lease! If you're going to commit TOS violations (and, please don't,) then at least show a little humility when you are called on it.
Blah blah more on-topic stuff.
But not if that idiot [Bush/Clinton/whomever] has anything to say about it.
Blah blah blah yet more on-topic stuff.
My 2 cents.
>is what I like to call drive-by TOS violations
I think you will find that many of those, certainly not all, but many, follow a so-called "non-political" statement of the "I don't think it's political because it's something I agree with so it must be plain and simple fact" variety.
I think you will find that many of those, certainly not all, but many, follow a so-called "non-political" statement of the "I don't think it's political because it's something I agree with so it must be plain and simple fact" variety.
Reading the article, it's no surprise at the lop-sided vote
19 earlier comments in the full thread.
It would if the subject discussed was the source license idea and not a "lets pick on this particular politician for this reason" thread.
If I am not mistaken all politicians are for government regulation of the Internet and DRM. Ron Paul being a notable exception.
If I am not mistaken all politicians are for government regulation of the Internet and DRM. Ron Paul being a notable exception.
Dino: Oh, and do I need to note that your usage of the word she above is exactly the type comment which will cause some to immediately scream "TOS violation", even if you weren't intending such.
jdixon's right about the 'she' part. That would cause it to get the yank from me. To a lot of people it would be a veiled sexist attack. Its not like there are more than one 'she' presidential candidates out there right now.
> That would cause it to get the yank from me. To a lot of people it would be a veiled sexist attack.
While to others it would be an honest attempt to be non-sexist and admit that a woman was a viable candidate. That's a no win situation.
While to others it would be an honest attempt to be non-sexist and admit that a woman was a viable candidate. That's a no win situation.
>jdixon's right about the 'she' part.
Interesting.
You do know that Elizabeth Dole ran for President in 2000? So far, Hillary's gone no further than Dole did.
A question -- If a candidate did come out for such things, are you saying it would be wrong to identify the candidate? If "she" is wrong, then the candidate's name would certainly be worse.
Interesting.
You do know that Elizabeth Dole ran for President in 2000? So far, Hillary's gone no further than Dole did.
A question -- If a candidate did come out for such things, are you saying it would be wrong to identify the candidate? If "she" is wrong, then the candidate's name would certainly be worse.
Scott:
> Ron Paul being a notable exception.
And being one of the two people who voted against this bill. At what point does it become reasonable for a member to conclude publicly on LXer that Ron Paul is likely the most FOSS friendly candidate available? Or would it ever be such?
Dino:
I don't think Elizabeth Dole ever lead in the Republican polls. I could be wrong, of course. But, as no votes have yet been cast in this election, you are correct.
> Ron Paul being a notable exception.
And being one of the two people who voted against this bill. At what point does it become reasonable for a member to conclude publicly on LXer that Ron Paul is likely the most FOSS friendly candidate available? Or would it ever be such?
Dino:
I don't think Elizabeth Dole ever lead in the Republican polls. I could be wrong, of course. But, as no votes have yet been cast in this election, you are correct.
> Its not like there are more than one 'she' presidential candidates out there right now.
At least two right now, if you include the Libertarian Party as well as the default(s).
> Ron Paul being a notable exception.
It's too bad that his position against "regulation-disguised-as-net-neutrality" has earned him some negatives in the F/OSS world.
At least two right now, if you include the Libertarian Party as well as the default(s).
> Ron Paul being a notable exception.
It's too bad that his position against "regulation-disguised-as-net-neutrality" has earned him some negatives in the F/OSS world.
Quoting:jdixon's right about the 'she' part.
As a non-native speaker may I comment that that's not a bug, but an unfortunate feature of the English language? In my mother tongue it would be definite "he", because "kandydat" is a masculine noun (the feminine form would be "kandydatka"). No confusion. And I always found this 'she' part strange, but I thought it's some sort of an unwritten rule...
>A question -- If a candidate did come out for such things, are you saying it would be wrong to identify the candidate? If "she" is wrong, then the candidate's name would certainly be worse.
The whole thing with the 'she' part is how it was used in your particular sentence. Using 'she' instead of just her name, the way you said it, made it sound bad. That's how I intrepeted it from the context it was used in.
I would say sticking to using just their name would be best. Referring to someone by their name really can't be construed negatively, can it?
>And being one of the two people who voted against this bill. At what point does it become reasonable for a member to conclude publicly on LXer that Ron Paul is likely the most FOSS friendly candidate available? Or would it ever be such?
I would say it is very reasonable, and ok, for someone to say that. But if it is used as a springboard to expound the poster's political opinions, which almost always stray from the subject of the article, then it is a TOS violation.
What is said in response to their post is not the fault of the original poster as long as they don't get dragged into a political opinion 'deathmatch' which most certainly will have strayed from the subject of the article that the thread should be about.
The whole thing with the 'she' part is how it was used in your particular sentence. Using 'she' instead of just her name, the way you said it, made it sound bad. That's how I intrepeted it from the context it was used in.
I would say sticking to using just their name would be best. Referring to someone by their name really can't be construed negatively, can it?
>And being one of the two people who voted against this bill. At what point does it become reasonable for a member to conclude publicly on LXer that Ron Paul is likely the most FOSS friendly candidate available? Or would it ever be such?
I would say it is very reasonable, and ok, for someone to say that. But if it is used as a springboard to expound the poster's political opinions, which almost always stray from the subject of the article, then it is a TOS violation.
What is said in response to their post is not the fault of the original poster as long as they don't get dragged into a political opinion 'deathmatch' which most certainly will have strayed from the subject of the article that the thread should be about.
> Referring to someone by their name really can't be construed negatively, can it?
Very strange, given that my hypothetical referred to nobody at all, that you would construe "she" negatively. In my world, "shes" are every bit as wonderful as "hes". In some contexts (from my standpoint, at least), "shes" are even more wonderful.
Of course, I have 3 daughters...
Very strange, given that my hypothetical referred to nobody at all, that you would construe "she" negatively. In my world, "shes" are every bit as wonderful as "hes". In some contexts (from my standpoint, at least), "shes" are even more wonderful.
Of course, I have 3 daughters...
jezuch:
English has no neutral gender form, though some have tried to create one. In English, the masculine form always includes the feminine by default, unless context or explicit usage indicates otherwise. Thus, when we say he, we are not limiting the gender to men, but when we say she, we are limiting the gender to women. Thus, Dino's usage of she above limits his hypothetical case to the women running. There's nothing wrong with that (it's as valid as any other hypothetical), but since it's a position which is certain to be unpopular among the readership of LXer, it could be taken as an unjustified statement of the likely position of the currently leading female candidate, and thus an attack on her.
Of course, having read Dino's posts both here and elsewhere for a number of years, I have no doubt the usage of she was deliberate on his part to illustrate a point, as it would be in my case if I used it.
English has no neutral gender form, though some have tried to create one. In English, the masculine form always includes the feminine by default, unless context or explicit usage indicates otherwise. Thus, when we say he, we are not limiting the gender to men, but when we say she, we are limiting the gender to women. Thus, Dino's usage of she above limits his hypothetical case to the women running. There's nothing wrong with that (it's as valid as any other hypothetical), but since it's a position which is certain to be unpopular among the readership of LXer, it could be taken as an unjustified statement of the likely position of the currently leading female candidate, and thus an attack on her.
Of course, having read Dino's posts both here and elsewhere for a number of years, I have no doubt the usage of she was deliberate on his part to illustrate a point, as it would be in my case if I used it.
English does indeed. "He" is the pronoun to use when one does not know.
With the Woman's Lib thing, the use of "she" and even "herstory" instead of "history" has leaked into the language.
I tend to use "they", "their" and such, even if incorrect, when I want to be as gender neutral as possible. But still, technically, it's "he".
With the Woman's Lib thing, the use of "she" and even "herstory" instead of "history" has leaked into the language.
I tend to use "they", "their" and such, even if incorrect, when I want to be as gender neutral as possible. But still, technically, it's "he".
>Thus, Dino's usage of she above limits his hypothetical case to the women running.
Given that it is a hypothetical, it limits nothing -- the race in question may have nothing but female candidates!
Given that it is a hypothetical, it limits nothing -- the race in question may have nothing but female candidates!
> "He" is the pronoun to use when one does not know.
Bob, you know as well as I do that's exactly equivalent to what I said, which was "the masculine form always includes the feminine by default".
Bob, you know as well as I do that's exactly equivalent to what I said, which was "the masculine form always includes the feminine by default".
I am not going to say that I am glad that this whole thing happened..
But this kind of discussion helps me to clarify for myself just what constitutes a TOS violation concerning politics in my mind.
Or at least gives everyone an idea of how I'm going to react to stuff. :-)
But this kind of discussion helps me to clarify for myself just what constitutes a TOS violation concerning politics in my mind.
Or at least gives everyone an idea of how I'm going to react to stuff. :-)
> But this kind of discussion helps me to clarify for myself just what constitutes a TOS violation concerning politics in my mind.
That's whats important Scott. You need to be fair and consistent. If you are, then everything will work itself out.
That's whats important Scott. You need to be fair and consistent. If you are, then everything will work itself out.
> you know as well as I do that's exactly equivalent to what I said...
Sure is, but in completely unambiguous terms and simple words, for those without English as their first language.
It's also what happens when I forget to refresh a thread before posting.
Sure is, but in completely unambiguous terms and simple words, for those without English as their first language.
It's also what happens when I forget to refresh a thread before posting.
> It's also what happens when I forget to refresh a thread before posting.
OK. All is forgiven. It's not like I haven't done the same thing. :)
OK. All is forgiven. It's not like I haven't done the same thing. :)
It seems that while Some People here have a bias towards political discussions, I'm drawn to linguistic discussions. I wonder if all programmers do ;)
Hmmm, I remember one quote from Civilisation II: "Your spy [completed the mission]. SHE has returned to the nearest city." Does that mean that the authors of Civ II were trying to be politically correct? ;) Wikipedia (to which I went before I wrote my post above) says that "singular they" seems to be the way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they). Even Shakespeare used it! ;) BTW: it's somewhat funny to see that when examples from non-English languages are needed, Wikipedia usually gives them in Polish ;)
Well, that may be true, but I don't believe Dino used 'she' this way.
Quoting:"He" is the pronoun to use when one does not know.
Hmmm, I remember one quote from Civilisation II: "Your spy [completed the mission]. SHE has returned to the nearest city." Does that mean that the authors of Civ II were trying to be politically correct? ;) Wikipedia (to which I went before I wrote my post above) says that "singular they" seems to be the way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singular_they). Even Shakespeare used it! ;) BTW: it's somewhat funny to see that when examples from non-English languages are needed, Wikipedia usually gives them in Polish ;)
Quoting:Thus, when we say he, we are not limiting the gender to men, but when we say she, we are limiting the gender to women.
Well, that may be true, but I don't believe Dino used 'she' this way.
Quoting:BTW: it's somewhat funny to see that when examples from non-English languages are needed, Wikipedia usually gives them in Polish
Nope, WP doesn't, Polish programmers who are drawn to linguistic discussions do and probably put them there;) But beware, this whole 'she' discussion is in fact off-topic (though that isn't against TOS AFAIK).
Post a comment
A free account is needed to post. Write your comment here first: your text is kept in this browser while you sign up or log in, and is waiting for you when you come back.
Your message:Markdown: **bold**, *italic*, [text](https://link), - lists, > quotes, $x^2$ for math. Formatting help
Sign up and post (it is free) or Log in and post