The ball is laid dead, but it won't lie down

[Sigvald Grøsfjeld jr.]

<Halsten.Aastebol at elkraft.ntnu.no> wrote:

> Rodney at least speaks for me,
>
> He speaks for me to.

Why do you keep the negative focus going on? Aren't there more interesting
issues to be discussed here in DCML?


> I know for a fact that some of us have refused
> to post at all for weeks (as has been pointed
> out recently) because we don't like the
> direction DCML has taken lately. Please don't
> give us more reason to remain silent.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
>
> Regards
> Halsten
> Who denies to accept the notion that lack of
> knowledge of the English language is an excuse
> for using offensive language.

Apparently I have not been understood and thus I have to explain it all over
again in order to be understood correctly:

1)
Rodney addressed me particularly about the use of the word "dips**t". My
explanation for using this word is that I can't come up with a proper
English synonym for it. The word "dips**t" is not included in the English
dictionary on MS Word for Windows so I am left with three choices - using
the word I do know, using a whole bunch of words to explain the same thing,
or to stay quiet. As the right to free speech shouldn't be limited to those
with a huge vocabulary I decided to use that word. I am sorry if some/many
people here don't like that and I have already told you all in my response
to Rodney that I won't use it again.

2)
In a private mail I have been told that addressing Rodney as "This Rodney
guy" can be seen as offensive. I will thus here and now address my apology
to Rodney if that's also how he sees it. The reason I addressed him that way
though was that his name wasn't mentioned anywhere in his mail. I found his
first name in his mail-address. His full name, Rodney Bowcock, was first
mentioned to me in the private mail I have mentioned above. So please
everyone – use your full name in your mails, at least when discussing
delicate matters.

3)
In the same private mail I was told that speaking for others can bee seen as
"to apply group pressure", and apparently that's not the kind of
argumentation people like to see in DCML – at least so I have been very
clearly told lately. Still other persons do the same, whether their claim of
speaking for others is true or not, IMO doesn't change the fact that they
are using what seems to be an unwanted way of argumentation in DCML. IMO Mr.
Bowcock could have sent the same message without referring to anyone else
and I would still have taken his point. And even better he could also have
told me useful less- or non-offensive synonyms for that unwanted "dips**t"
word.

4)
FYI, I have decided to follow the very kind and most serious advice, given
in private by some of my good Scandinavian DCML-friends – to go into
lurk-modus for a month or so to see how the situation here in DCML are
developing. Then I will decide whether to go back to be an active DCMLer, to
continue as a lurker or simply to leave this whole m-l.

5)
FYI2, I will still comment any mails coming up in DCML focusing around my
person *if* I find it necessary as I did with this mail from Halsten.

Sigvald