--On Saturday, October 15, 2022 10:39 -0400 Keith Moore
<moore@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On 10/15/22 09:34, John C Klensin wrote:
>
>> Ok, but your suggested language / convention does not convey
>> that directly. I could be a code for that message, which
>> would be fine except that I don't think we should be speaking
>> in coded language. If nothing else, it is likely to deter
>> newcomers, including newcomers who are not problematic in any
>> way, from participating. If Participant A wants Participant
>> B (presumably the source of the idea or message to which
>> Participant A wants to convey "I respectfully disagree..." to
>> get the message without knowing the code, they might need to
>> say something slightly more explicit such as "I respectfully
>> disagree that this is a good idea and will not continue the
>> conversation, at least unless you or others introduce some new
>> ideas or reasoning."
>
> Sure. Mostly I was proposing an idea, rather than trying
> to suggest exact language to use.
Understood (perhaps before, certainly now). In that context, I
was trying to suggest considerations and constraints as exact
language is designed.
> But there is a drawback to being more explicit, which is that
> it appears to continue the conversation even while ostensibly
> trying to not do that. There's an inherent conflict
> between wanting to end a conversation, and insisting on having
> the last word.
Indeed. As I tried to point out, your original suggestion could
also be read as encouraging more conversation.
There is also the conflict I tried to suggest between language
that is intended to end a conversation and language that can be
interpreted as dismissive, abusive, or offensive. At least in
some cases, there may also be an important distinction between
"I am dropping out of this conversation" and "I think this
conversation should end forthwith".
I am sure there are polite and supportive ways to tell someone
that they are re-proposing, without adding anything new, an idea
that has previously been rejected afte5 being kicked to death
and that should not be discussed further or reopened until
someone actually has something new and of substance to
contribute. Similarly, I am sure there are polite ways to tell
someone that, in the opinion of the writer, their proposal
violates the laws of physics or is totally lacking in technical
or social value.
In case it adds perspective, I believe that phrases such as
"Thank you for your input" were once intended sincerely. More
recently, they have been used ironically (or in other negative
ways), often enough to be interpreted as disparaging. "He is a
fine fellow" (with or without gender corrections) can be either
sincere or as a euphemistic or coded way to imply "he is a
complete jerk". Those distinctions, especially when the phrases
occur without clear context, are often bewildering for very
experienced speakers/readers of English, not only those who are
newer or less skilled with the language and its idioms and other
nuances.
I am not convinced that any of those thoughts can be conveyed,
especially without risk of being offensive and without
problematic ambiguity, in a short phrase or sentence. And that
is why "I'm dropping out of this conversation, see standard note
#3 (<link>)" might not have been an entirely silly suggestion.
john
p.s. I am in no way advocating for the retention of the kind of
language we are trying to eliminate. However, as we move in
better directions, we need to recognize that, in some cases,
that language was often much more concise and less subject to
ambiguous interpretations than the newer and better
substitutions. The older, otherwise more problematic, forms had
the advantage of making the intent of someone who wanted to be
demeaning, insulting, or dismissive much more clear. However,
because not everyone who has said such things had that intent,
the difficulty is deducing the intent from the expression in
language. From the standpoint of the recipient or observer,
that is not really a difference and the language should go away.
But we do, I think, need to get much better at understanding
that there are tradeoffs involved, that intent is not always
easy to deduce accurately, and that improved language that
provides equal clarity may take many more words.
