----- Original Message ----- From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, January 14, 2002 9:57 AM Subject: RE: Treatment Of Prisoners (was RE: Tragedy in Israel)
> > -----Oorspronkelijk bericht----- > > Van: Dan Minette [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > > Verzonden: Monday, January 14, 2002 15:53 > > Aan: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Onderwerp: Re: Treatment Of Prisoners (was RE: Tragedy in Israel) > > > > > >But I will ask - do you really think that a personal attack that > > > > >suggests that I have difficulties with very simple English > > > > >sentences is really all that likely to be taken seriously by > > > > >anyone who has read my posts to the list of the last few years? > > > > > > > > Yes, because you have repeatedly cited your difficulty with English > > > > on this List. > > > > > > So, after reading all those messages I have sent over the years, you > > > come to the conclusion (based on things like spelling, grammar and > > > syntax) that my understanding of English leaves much to be desired. > > > That is rather odd, considering that people on this list have > > > repeatedly complimented me on my command of the English language, > > > which happens to be quite good, especially for a non-native speaker. > > > > That's not the point. > > It appears to be John�s point. When I asked if my posts indicate that I have > a problem even with very simple English sentences, John answered "Yes" -- an > answer that leaves little or no room for more than one explanation. My posts > over the years, however, prove him wrong. > > > > Here is what is being referred to. This doesn't happen all the time, > > but it has often happened. > > > > You make a statement that many consider to be outrageous. > > > > People respond to your statement. > > > > You claim that they are twisting your words > > > > Many respond to this, and the general agreement is that they responded > > to the plain English meaning of your words. > > More accurately, I have claimed that people misinterpret my words, and even > continue to do so after I have further explained my writings and how they > should be interpreted. > > > > You then resort to the "no speaka de English good" defense. > > No, that is what *other* people claim I did. I have never argued that I > could not understand something because I do not understand English very > well. Again, my posts over the years are ample proof of my command of the > language. > Let me just consider one word that you used: debunk. After you used, it, I gave the definition of it, offerering you a chance to withdraw the word, you reponded to the post quoted the post in which I sections above and below the section where I defined in...and went on supporting that arguement. Later you wrote "OK, so I used what in English is considered a very strong word. Cut me some slack -- English isn't my native language, and I don't have my copy of The Concise Oxford Dictionary memorized either." The no speaka de English defense. I documented much of the exchange in posts 74167 and 74188, as given in the archives at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/brin-l/. If people take the common English understanding of your words, they are not misinterpreting your posts. They are intepreting them correctly. The matching of your intent with the common understanding of the English words you write is your responsibility, not the readers. Dan M.
