At 12:15 22-8-01 -0500, Marvin Long 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.
That's good to hear.
>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;
Thanks! :-)
>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.
Ah, but I don't live in America. I'm not even American.
>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).
Again, I don't live in America, and I'm not an American.
BTW, close examination of the almost 1,200 messages I've posted here will
reveal that the English I use on this list is a mixture of British English
and American English.
>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
Hey, leave my sister out of it! :-)
...Or face the wrath of her brothers... <evil grin>
>or daughter
And her too! :-)
>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.
Believe me, if I had wanted to threaten Bob (or anyone else for that
matter) with a lawsuit, I would have written something that could not
*possibly* be interpreted other than as a direct threat of legal steps...
(something like "shut up or I'll sue you for every penny you've got").
> > 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.
>
>Do you REALLY want a direct answer to this question?
Of course I do.
>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.
Good luck! :-)
>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."
You really don't want to do that. Those misinterpretations (and some other
things I'm not exactly happy about) have happened for almost as long as
I've been subscribed; the research alone will keep you busy till Xmas...
Jeroen
_________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful World of Brin-L Website: http://go.to/brin-l
