Re: Indefinite pronouns [was: Re: <something technical>]

On 20.06.2024 14:10, Kenny McCormack wrote:

 
This sub-thread is certainly interesting, but it ultimately smacks of
people looking for ways to feel insulted.  Victimhood complex, and all that.
 
But, it makes me think that the problem is the basic paradigm of newsgroup
(i.e., online forum) communication being thought of as personalized.  I.e.,
as in direct person-to-person communication - as if it was being spoken in
a real room with real people (face-to-face).  The fact is, it is not.  It
would be better if we didn't think of it that way.  Rather, it should be
thought of as communication between the speaker and an anonymous void.
I.e., I'm not talking to you - I am talking to the anonymous void.
Everybody is.
 
Sort of like in the (US) House of Representatives - members are not ever
supposed to be talking to each other.  Rather, they are always speaking to
the void.
 
Like I am doing now.
 
This is also why it is good (And, yes, I know this goes against the CW) to
drop attributions, as I have done here.  Keep it anonymous.

Part 1

This is hard to achieve given that the technical NG infrastructure and
functions "logically" connect the articles; it's only a little burden
to identify (if not already obvious) the addressee.

I think it would be better to try to stay on the issue as opposed to
reply (as so often done) ad hominem (where arguments don't seem to
exist or don't help anymore). This is of course yet more difficult to
achieve and will in practice [also] not work in Usenet (I'm sure).

Language can be used or interpreted in personal or impersonal forms.
Some communication forms - and more so their semantical contents! -
are (beyond the "you" vs. "one" dichotomy) inherently [set up to be]
personal.

-- Anonymous
:-)

Part 2

That all said. I think it's important to know who said/posted what.
It allows to associate personal context/background information when
replying. You can also be more assured about the quality of contents
(to the good or bad) or even ignore certain posts. It saves time and
protects ones health and mental sanity.[*]

There's of course also post (or threads) that just exchange opinions,
and "we" know everyone [typically] has an opinion (and often even in
cases where they are put up against facts). Some folks are known to
post a lot, respond to every thread that appears, contributing facts
(sometimes) but also opinions (or personal offenses); this may be a
nuisance (or just ignored, unless "anonymously" posted).

So far my opinion on this non-technical meta-topic subthread.

Janis
(Darn, I disclosed my identity!)

[*] Wasn't that the inherent problem of all those "social media"
platforms? - Where anonymous posts - and some say that anonymity
does negatively contribute to the language and contents of such
disturbing posts - lead to barbarian communication conditions.
(I know that only from hearsay but it seems common perception.)