> A customer is not in any way responsible for what one of its
> subcontractors say unless it is in the context of both of them
> acting together.

> So then, why do you bother including the disclaimer at the end
> of each of your posts?

> I don't follow you. I don't have any clients, nor am I anybody
> else's client on this list.

I have faith in you, Marc. If you keep on trying, I'm sure you'll 
finally get it.

> But I *will* tell you why I started putting that disclaimer
> on all of my email. Once, on a non-LDS list, a geography list
> on about.com moderated by a young geography prof at UCDavis,
> someone took exception to something I said and threatened to
> take his complaint to my boss.

What?! You mean, you were threatened with having your views attributed 
to the guy signing your paycheck? Whoda thunk that a "customer" (or 
employer) is indeed often implicated, fairly or not, in the words of its 
"subcontractors" (or employees)? Amazing!

> If you can't even get that right, it's no surprise that you get
> everything else wrong, too.

> Thanks for the kind words.

> Hey, it's my job.

Seriously? You get paid for being insulting?

> Just pointing these things out, like you like to do. Who watches
> the watchers?

Marc Schindler, of course.

-The Watchers Watcher-
> Jim was wrong, as I've demonstrated on several ocasions. I
> don't care about his dictionary definition. Ducros is no Ari
> Fleischer.

> So then, the dictionary is only correct if it agrees with your
> personal definition?

-The Watchers Watcher-
> He was wrong when he said it was a public statement -- he's
> never retracted that, even after being shown that it wasn't a
> public statement.

It was a statement made in a public setting, which makes it fair game. 
But I don't recall you going ballistic over the public vs private nature 
of the statement so much as Jim's use of the term "politician" to 
describe Ducros.

> And it is illogical to claim that because I disagree with
> someone's interpretation of a dictionary in use in one
> particular country, that I therefore hold an idiosyncratic
> definition of my own.

How about that? And here I thought it was illogical to maintain that you 
were correct in the face of proof that you are wrong. Silly me.

> Hello?

Hello. How's it going? Nice tantrum you're throwing.

> There are far more anglophones outside the USA than inside the
> USA.

Well, that pretty much sums up the argument, doesn't it?

Assuming for a moment that Jim's dictionary definition of "politician" 
is, as you insist, strictly an American usage: Jim's an American. Do you 
expect him to quit using his native tongue just because he's talking to 
Marc Schindler? I confess, I had no idea just how important you are.

> I explained the difference between Ducros and Fleischer.

Yes, you did. Exhaustively. Repetitively. In minute detail. And, above 
all, condescendingly. (And thanks for that.)

> I have worked with provincial counterparts of Ducros. I think
> I can speak on the basis of direct experience.

Ah. I see. You're looking for genuflection. Allow me to be the first:

All Hail Marc Schindler, The Wise, Compassionate, and Darned-Near 

-The Watchers Watcher-
> Your ignorance just makes you look silly.

> How true this is. Thanks again for more kind words.

-The Watchers Watcher-
> Well, you're the one who's used to being in the "keep 'em
> straight" saddle.

Not familiar with that saddle. I assume that what you're saying is that, 
despite the condescending tone you take with others, you don't like 
being publicly corrected or shown to be in error. And why should you? 
Heaven knows you've performed enough public service to the rest of us 
provincial ignoramuses (or should I say, Americans -- or even 
Republicans) by gently cluing us in via your wondrous condescension 
toward us and your genial manner, that you should be far removed from 
anyone actually daring to offer a different opinion from yours, much 
less actual correction. I'm in complete agreement.

> I meant nothing personal or insulting.

Of course you did not. Just another example of my silliness!

Why, I am sure you would happily tell your boss, your co-worker, your 
wife, or your dinner-party guest, "Your ignorance just makes you look 
silly". How could they possibly take offense at that? It's neither 
personal (except perhaps for the "you" part) nor insulting (except 
perhaps for the "ignorance" and "silly" parts). Thanks for pointing that 
out. Your clarifications are so helpful, and your strict, self-searching 
honesty refreshing.


///  ZION LIST CHARTER: Please read it at  ///
///  http://www.zionsbest.com/charter.html      ///

This email was sent to: archive@jab.org

EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?aaP9AU.bWix1n.YXJjaGl2
Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

T O P I C A -- Register now to manage your mail!

Reply via email to