On Tue, 21 Aug 2001, Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLBD/BGM/SVM/SGM wrote:
> Apparently, some people considered my statement "a threat of legal action".
> For the record: it is not a threat -- it's a recommendation from me to be
> more careful when accusing people.
>
> This really is quite obvious, I'd say. Phrases like...
>
> - "be more careful IN THE FUTURE"
> - "start making a habit" (one instance doesn't make it a habit)
> - "sooner or later"
>
> ...are all very clear indications that this is not a threat.
For the record: I for one did not read your statement as an explicit
threat towards Bob. I did not read it as a threat for 2 reasons: 1) the
thought of someone in the Netherlands threatening someone in the US with a
lawsuit over a petty list disagreement is absurd, and I don't think you're
that stupid; 2) I was trying to be nice and read statements in the most
positive possible light rather than a more negative light.
However, your statement that your phrases are "very clear indications
that this is not a threat" strikes me as incorrect. In my opinion, your
original comment was almost a textbook case, maybe even a cliche, of what
in America would be called a veiled threat. Here is your original
comment:
"If I were you, I'd be more careful in the future when throwing
accusations around. If you start making a habit of accusing people of something
without providing evidence, sooner or later you're going to find yourself in
court, explaining your behaviour to a judge."
In American English, it's very common to make oblique threats because
direct ones are considered intemperate or uncool or unsafe (direct threats
are among the behaviors that will land one in court). Sentences that say,
"If I were you, I'd stop doing X because sooner or later you'll incur
consequence Y," are a common way of saying something that actually means,
"If you keep doing X, I will perform consequence Y upon your person."
For a simple comparison, take it out of the realm of lawsuits and into
something more personal. For example, imagine that some guy keeps calling
and harrassing your sister or daughter in a persistent or annoying way,
not necessarily violent, but certainly not desired, either. As the
concerned brother or father, it would be pretty common for one to offer
advice to the unlucky suitor along these lines: "If you don't learn when
to stop pestering a woman after she says no, you might find yourself in a
great amount of trouble." Even though there's no overt threat in this
sentence, the person who hears it is clearly meant to hear the following:
"If you don't leave this woman alone, I'll either call the police or beat
the crap out of you." The veiled threat is very clear to any speaker of
American English, and I'm pretty sure that goes for many other English
dialects as well.
Back to what you actually said, Jeroen. Generally speaking, whether or
not such phrases are taken as threats or as "recommendations" depends
upon context. If the speaker is referring to an unwise behavior directed
towards some anonymous third party, then such a phrase might simply be
a bit of cautionary advice. If, on the other hand, the speaker is
referring to an undesired behavior directed towards himself or his own,
then such a phrase, 95% of the time, will be construed as a veiled threat.
In fact, I cannot imagine a native speaker of English who would not see an
implied threat in the words themselves. Moreover, I'm sure that most
other languages have ways of making veiled threats that parallel the
examples we've looked at in English, so I find it hard to believe that
you would be totally unaware of the existance of that category of statements,
i.e. veiled threats in general.
However, I apply an exception to these rules in your case because my
instinct is to assume that you didn't really intend to make
a threat. I'm very confident that that wasn't your intent, so I
automatically give you the benefit of the doubt. But then, I
wasn't the one having an argument with you, and I myself have never been
sued. Moreover, my willingness to make an exception depends entirely upon
my past impressions of you as a person, and in no way depends on the
language of the statement itself.
> I still can't figure out why some people on this list don't seem capable of
> understanding what I write; they even don't understand it after I (sometimes
> repeatedly) provide additional explanations. Heck, I can even explicitly
> state "this is how my post must be interpreted", and people *still* continue
> to interpret a post wrongly.
>
> Why? I really don't have a clue.
Reality-check time. Do you REALLY want a direct answer to this question?
The reason I ask is that I'm willing to reread the landmine debate and try
to figure out where and how things seem to have gone wrong--not just in
your case but with respect to all the various participants. It's a
question that piques my curiosity because I don't have a quick, general
answer at hand. Moreover, I'm not sure generalizations will provide a
good answer. I'd rather look at specific instances of "communications
breakdown" than indulge in some kind of generalized diagnosis of
personal rhetorical fault.
Alternatively, if you'd rather pick specific instances in which you
were misunderstood, I'll be happy to do my best to analyze those
instances in the context of the overall debate and try to produce an
answer to "why."
But I must repeat the question in all seriousness. Do you really want me
(or someone else) to do that? On-list or off? Or would you rather
do it yourself, keeping the spirit of the list guidelines in mind, and just
resolve to try to do better in the future?
Marvin Long
Austin, Texas
"The ego that sees a 'thou' is fundamentally different from an ego that
sees an 'it.'" -- Joseph Campbell
