Webunny wrote:I don't even understand the reasoning of that question. How would stating a factual observation indicate one doesn't allow anyone else to say whatever he/she wants?
justincase wrote:It was a rhetorical question. The answer is obviously that anyone (including Black_Fox) is allowed to remind people of a known issue. The point was to question why you felt the need to link the previous mention of the issue, when it was not addressed, or even mentioned a second time in that location. I did not actually expect a response, it was more like a side-note to you.
Webunny wrote:While a rhetorical question is not posed to elicit a specific answer, it is still asked in order to make a point; aka; it is done with a reason. As said, I do not understand the reason behind yours, unless you actually thought I was of the opinion that somebody *doesn't* have the right to say something again.
My response was an explanation of my reasoning. Why did this have to be brought up again? (note this is also a rhetorical question)
Webunny wrote:I can't help but notice that the point you were trying to make was most likely based on projection or at least a wrong interpretation. Otherwise, the complete lack of relevance would be absurd.
The point was not based on a wrong interpretation, but rather that I thought that due to the way you said it it could easily be misinterpreted by others, which could get offended, etc. I was trying to 'nip it in the bud'. (yeah, that worked well didn't it? ... rhetorical again)
Webunny wrote:person 1:"I think it's going to rain Friday."
person 2:"I thought the same thing."
person 1:"What, you mean I can't think anymore it's going to rain because you thought so before too?!"
person 2:"Ermmm..." ???
If you'd said, 'Yeah, I noticed that too. Can anything be done about it?' (or something along those lines) I would not have felt any need to mention it.
What you said however was "I already pointed that out ..." which could easily be misread to be a 'why did you bother posting that, I already did'.
Figuring that you did NOT mean it that way, I wanted to put up something light which would illicit nothing more than perhaps a 'lol' or two. (foiled again.)
At this point I'm done with this misunderstanding. I've done my best to explain why I said what I said, and I don't want this to become another of those long-winded mostly-off-topic threads that have a tendency to crop up lately.
Back to the topic of translations
Webunny wrote:Note the 'only'. You're completely barking up the wrong tree here, because you missed that. Saying 'Dutch isn't the language of the Netherlands' or saying 'Dutch isn't the language of ONLY the Netherlands" are two entirely different things. You make a whole paragraph arguing agianst the first, while that has no bearing on what I said.
Sorry, totally my fault. That only makes quite the difference doesn't it? (rhetorical)
justincase wrote:As far as English goes, ...
Webunny wrote:I wasn't suggesting of changing it. I was just pondering on what basis one should best (aka, most logically) choose the flag of which country.
Sorry, I guess I read a little far between the lines, either way I hope my points about the main requirement being that the flag associated with a language be recognizable to native speakers of the language in question was helpful to you and/or others.
Webunny wrote: justincase wrote:
Yes I meant that deal, and you shouldn't have "had
to search" for it, seeing as I quoted it almost every time I mentioned it. ( for it. Ctrl+F is your friend
So, what? I am not allowed to search for the original anymore and mention/quote it again?*
----> See how easy (and nonsensical) it is?*
*Both are rhetorical questions too.
You're either trying to provoke me or trying to be funny. I'll assume the latter as I think I was pretty self-explanatory with the whole "not that there's anything wrong with searching ...", and leave it at that. ho ho ho.
Webunny wrote:So, Crackez; it seems you can do a translation after all. It's just conditional (see the "if's"). What do you say?
Yes, Crackez, what do you say? Now that has been firmly established one can re-re-reiterate everything, without it meaning another can't do the same, feel free to wade through posts that say and ask the same things over and over again.
Wow I think this re-...-re-iterating is getting a little out of hand, let's take a break and wait for Crackez.
Crackez? What do you think of "the deal
"? Are you in?
Your first two given reasons do not explain anything, at least not really. Unless you DO start with a misconception or contradictory premise. "The point was to question why you felt the need to link the previous mention of the issue"; can I then, in turn, ask why you felt the need to question why I felt the need to link to the previous mention of an issue? The whole reasoning given up until that point, is extremely contradictory. For instance, you also say "The answer is obviously that anyone (including Black_Fox) is allowed to remind people of a known issue." ...if everyone is allowed to remind people of a known issue, than I'm allowed to remind people of a known issue as well, which is exactly what I did and what you afterwards question in a rhetorical form.
Furthermore, you now say it's because people 'could' have misunderstood which 'might' lead to being offended... So avoiding misunderstanding and avoiding offence is your ultimate reason? In that case: saying 'So, what? Black_Fox isn't allowed to mention it in the currently more active thread where such issues are being discussed?" is completely different than saying "Webunny, what you say could be misunderstood by others - in MY personal opinion, where I feel I have to speak on behalf of others who I think can't speak for themselves* - so it might be better to change the wording.". It should have been obvious that the first would be far less conductive for not getting into a misunderstanding or being offended - yet which was, it would seem, your intended/stated goal. So why do you claim I made some ambiguous claim which you think might be offensive and 'nip it in the bud', by being pretty offensive yourself? By doing so, especially in that manner, you should have been aware you didn't nip it in the bud, but rather were watering, fertilising and cultivating it.
*aka, this is also an example of projection
Thus, if I may be so free to speak my mind:
1)I do not agree with your assessment that what I say was unduly offensive, provocative or even ambiguous. I stated a fact. It was to inform Black_Fox that the issue had already been noted before (namely by me), and that I had mentioned so to the devs/PR (and thus, that they were already aware of the issue). You question why I felt the need to say it. But I feel my reasons are enough, just like B_F apparently felt he had reasons enough to post his. In fact, why do I need to give account to you in the first place? If "anyone (including Black_Fox) is allowed to remind people of a known issue", you shouldn't have been making a fuzz about me reminding people (including Black_Fox) that it was a known issue neither.
2)I do not see why you would feel compelled to make whole posts about what you perceive that 'could' be misconstrued by what I say. This is, frankly, quite patronising. We're all adults here; if someone (anyone) has issues with what someone (anyone) else says, I'm sure they can speak for themselves. You're not Black_Fox's mom, and even if you were, he's old enough to speak for himself. This is also the only way to get out of the realm of the 'could' and 'might', which is an endless debate anyway, since - as said - what you're basically doing, is projecting your own interpretation unto someone else.
3)If you were trying to 'nip it in the bud', you did very little effort to do so effectively. It means you (claim that you) were afraid my 'ambiguous' wording 'might' be considered offensive by someone, but the fact that your quite outspoken and far less diplomatic wording might be far more likely to be considered offensive, didn't seem to occur to you. Again, this is contradictory, just like complaining about how a thread is full of side-issue-posts, while continuing to contribute with side-issue-posts yourself.
In fact, this reminds me vaguely of a similar discussion... Didn't you and I had a thread like this before, about more or less the same things? Could be someone else though, don't know anymore. That's the danger of re-re-iterating too much.
PS. What I say is not to be taken personally. I'm only expressing my thoughts and arguments about this issue, and on itself I respect the expression of your thoughts about it as well, even though I don't agree with them. Or at least not all of them, in this particular thread.