tlhIngan-Hol Archive: Mon Nov 26 22:55:50 2007
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]
Re: nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?
- From: "Qang qu'wI'" <[email protected]>
- Subject: Re: nuqDaq 'oH puchpa''e'?
- Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2007 00:53:32 -0600
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; bh=5yIMUEfVHBD8/Q5EXaRLFURp7fO4a/zwBTw6sxPci+4=; b=RspQqFfaNr5pL/JWgMzcFull4oBPIzwRbeuFNClXYfnoyB/H5pikRgklrKaW/lUNQwyArELocjcUEKFz58JY0Q+48sBpnUELOXGwKw0Lic4dQuSv7FjpAY2Bm9lzHqEV3QMeYeuGhq9zuiSaGxM9PYPsf0BHNPtKFG+jOH9VQx4=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=PR9DA2gfVENXtKR0is5gbIWyQdfXVp/brMbaP0tnMGNy6vxs7FyzI6lAlDJTW3ib/YaRcC77DnL9nPGSUq8Y1N/BnWqbrvHbQKQaqTYZQ8KUIcgTVNBd6Hg2nb/bZYO6VPdQ+8Y0hgtW4S96cB4fsylMIp+kQ1Au9ntQZ1K0uqI=
- In-reply-to: <[email protected]>
- References: <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]> <[email protected]>
On Nov 26, 2007 7:19 AM, Alan Anderson <[email protected]> wrote:
> of "relevant" and/or "response", I don't think any discussion will be
> productive.]
>
I don't believe this to be true, but I won't post any more on the
matter beyond this post. My tlhIngan Hol isn't up to it, and I think
the boundary of what is reasonable outside of tlhIngan Hol has pretty
much been breached. You're free to respond and have the last word.
I intended originally to take a short-circuit route to light a light
bulb, and unfortunately I think I've merely managed to create a
short-circuit.
I just wanted to point out that I was not intending to express
antagonism, nor a personal attack, nor did I take you're original
comment as antagonistic. I'm certainly not posting from a standpoint
of being upset at all. I was not looking for an apology, you didn't
do anything that requires an apology by any means, your intention was
to be helpful.
I will make one last try. I think that there are other Klingonists -
who you are more familiar with and have a long history with - who
could have posted essentially the same observation that I posted, and
had you chosen to respond, you very possibly would have responded in
an entirely different vein. The reason would be that you have more
background data and information with which to fill in for that person
than you do for me.
In my case, I am unfamiliar to you all and there is very little
background context with which to fill in a sort of 'mental model' to
use for me as the person on the other side of the post. I perceive
that gunchu'wI' - as a person with gravitas in this community -
accidentally entered into the milieu a mental model that people can
use for me in order to fill in the contextual gaps: I'm asking a bunch
of questions in order to build a grammar by consensus and then follow
that in a sort of robotic fashion. I would like to prevent such an
idea from taking hold, and being the unconscious background against
which individuals frame their response for questions that I pose.
It's at odds with my interests in tlhIngan Hol.
--
Qang qu'wI'