From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on polar.synack.me
X-Spam-Level: *
X-Spam-Status: No, score=1.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_05,INVALID_MSGID,
	REPLYTO_WITHOUT_TO_CC autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit
X-Google-Thread: 103376,2078dddcdcd8d83
X-Google-Attributes: gid103376,public
From: "John G. Volan" <johnvolan@sprintmail.com>
Subject: Re: Warning: Religious naming convention discussion :-) [was: assign
 help!!]
Date: 1997/05/19
Message-ID: <33800503.6266@sprintmail.com>#1/1
X-Deja-AN: 242362876
References: <5kjvcv$evt@news.cis.nctu.edu.tw> <5kn8ko$jcc@top.mitre.org>
 <1997May7.201035.2439@nosc.mil> <33727EEA.2092@sprintmail.com>
 <5kuf1j$17vi@uni.library.ucla.edu> <3373666A.31DFF4F5@spam.innocon.com>
 <3373EAB5.73A0@sprintmail.com> <dewar.863298747@merv>
 <337934F2.7593@world.std.com> <dewar.863717431@merv> <337DB3E3.3784@gdls.com>
 <dewar.863880184@merv> <337E4FDE.2638@sprintmail.com>
 <337e56fe.0@news2.maynick.com.au>
 <01bc639b$b805cd80$LocalHost@xhv46.dial.pipex.com>
Organization: Sprint Internet Passport
Reply-To: johnvolan@sprintmail.com
Newsgroups: comp.lang.ada
Date: 1997-05-19T00:00:00+00:00
List-Id: <comp.lang.ada>


Nick Roberts wrote:
> 
> It is interesting to note that many (not all) English, myself included,
> find it very hard to engage in any kind of argument (i.e. a conversation
> which involves the slightest disagreement of any kind) without feeling that
> it implies criticism, and thus being emotional charged. 

Hmm, you rather contradict Robert Dewar (another Britisher, I believe),
who has on numerous occasions claimed that "an argument" has the
positive connotation of "a friendly debate" in England, versus the
negative connotation of "a fight" in the United States.

> This is the root of
> the famous taciturn nature of the English: we would often rather simply
> stay quiet than risk offending somebody. It is not a really a very useful
> trait.
> 
> So if some of my arguments appear a bit too 'two-sided', that is, trying to
> be too appreciative of the counter-argument, now you know why. I am
> desperately trying not to annoy! I shall retire to the patio now, and sup
> my Earl Grey tea :-)

Ah, but here you somewhat concur with Robert, who has also indicated
that one is not really qualified to convincingly debate in favor of
one's own position, unless one is also prepared to convincingly debate
_against_ it.  We may debate :-) whether Robert's assertion is
justified, but at any rate you put rather a different spin on what might
motivate a Britisher to hold such an assertion... :-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Internet.Usenet.Put_Signature 
  (Name => "John G. Volan",  Home_Email => "johnvolan@sprintmail.com",
   Slogan => "Ada95: The World's *FIRST* International-Standard OOPL",
   Disclaimer => "These opinions were never defined, so using them " & 
     "would be erroneous...or is that just nondeterministic now? :-) ");
------------------------------------------------------------------------