RE: [wg-review] 4. [GA] Comments

["Joanna Lane" <jo-uk@rcn.com>]

I can assure you that I have nothing against you personally, only your
beliefs.  My purpose is to reveal the subtext, (the underlying message), of
what you are telling this group to do, by explaining the meaning of
particular words you have chosen to use, (albeit subconsciously) and in
particular, for those members whose first language is not English, who may
be missing the subtleties.

Allow me to note one more:-

Derek Conant wrote:-
<In the context I used the word *sophisticated*, I would have rather you
interpreted it mean: wise, cultured or shrewd in human affairs.>

*Shrewd* means acute judgement:  biting, keen: peevish, troublesome, sly,
malicious, wicked, cunning, vixenish.
Derived from *shrew*, which has connotations with the devil.

Are these characteristics this WG wants to embrace?

Sincerely,
Joanna





Joanna Lane wrote:

> Derek Conant wrote:-
>
> <My point is that if this WG is not sophisticated enough to understand
that
> the
> GA must have certain representatives who are willing to be accountable for
> the
> record and direction of the GA, then a rudder will not help it.>
>
> The last thing this WG needs to be is *sophisticated* (adulterated:
impure:
> not genuine) derived from *sophism* (a specious fallacy). However, I note
> that you consider yourself to be a  *sophist* (5th century BC Greece - a
> capatious or fallacious reasoner) and seek to *sophisticate* this WG, ( to
> corrupt by mixture.) That says it all.
>
> Joanna

--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html