On Wed, 30 Jan 2002, Dan Minette wrote: > Jeroen: > > A warning, Gautam, not a threat. Saying "shut up or we will shoot you" is > a > > threat. Telling someone that his behaviour got him one step closer to > being > > banned is a warning that his behaviour has some room for improvement. > > Dan: > Who agrees or disagrees with this?
By definition, a warning is a threat -- without the threat of consequences, a warning doesn't actually warn. The only difference is that the word "warning" sounds less dire and less personal than the word "threat." Jeroen has compared Eileen's warning to the case when a cop pulls you over and cautions you about your driving but lets you go without a ticket. Unfortunately, Eileen's warning -- thought I'm sure she meant well -- was so abrupt and without explanation that it came across as the kind of warning you sometimes get from them sherrifs in the deep, deep, South that sometimes pull you over and say "I got my eyes on you, boy, so don't you do anythang...rash," without actually telling you what's on their minds. Rather unnerving, to say the least. <nostalgia wax="on"> Once upon a time, Jo Anne might have wielded her mighty Wand of Dings and soothed the situation with a rancorless and witty exhortation to gentle manners, before the particular debate leading us to this state of affairs had come to a head. Alas, only she can wield that wand, it seems, since it takes a uniquely deft touch that most of us lack. Oftentimes in those halcyon days it seemed that a mature and kindly bodhisattva-like soul could simply post a message asking for calm and consideration, without any need to single people out, and listmembers would consult their own consciences and make whatever adjustments were needed to their rhetorical styles. Or am I romanticizing the past? </nostalgia> Maybe I am, somewhat. For now, though, I'm most definitely in the corner occupied by Gautam and the honorable Robert "xponent" Seeberger on this one. Marvin Long Austin, Texas
