Charming Lobby vs Delaying Tactics question (LSJ)
Stone
Delaying Tactics. If I understand correctly the ruling of 2000
(http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a3368d88ac2eb79e),
the other minions cannot play again neither CL nor KRC, due to DT. A player
copy/pasted a quote from IRC saying other minions could call a KRC, since :
'[14:45] <LSJ> The CL + KRC action is not the same action as the KRC action.
[14:46] <LSJ> So a different minion could call a KRC. '
Is the ruling of 2000 obsolete or is the quote from IRC wrong ?
thanks
Stone
Name: Charming Lobby
[Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:U/PTo, LoB:PG, KoT:U]
Cardtype: Action
Discipline: Presence
+1 stealth political action.
[pre] This vampire calls a referendum listed on a political action card in
your hand (play that card) or allowed by an effect in play. If the
referendum passes, then the next referendum called by any vampire thereafter
passes automatically.
[PRE] As above, and this vampire gains 2 votes in that first referendum.
Artist: Heather Hudson; Brian LeBlanc; Steve Prescott
Name: Delaying Tactics
[Jyhad:U, VTES:U, CE:U/PN, Third:U, KoT:U]
Cardtype: Reaction
Cost: 1 blood
Only usable during a referendum.
Cancel the referendum. Untap the acting vampire. The political action card
(if any) played to call this referendum is returned to its owner's hand
(discard afterward), and the acting Methuselah's minions cannot attempt the
same political action again this turn.
Artist: Brian LeBlanc; Quinton Hoover
Blooded Sand
> A vampire calls a Kine Resources Contested via Charming Lobby. Someone plays
> Delaying Tactics. If I understand correctly the ruling of 2000
IANLSJ, but as the CL states that it is a political action, I would
assume you could still play the KRC.
LSJ
> A vampire calls a Kine Resources Contested via Charming Lobby. Someone plays
> Delaying Tactics. If I understand correctly the ruling of 2000
> (http://groups.google.com/group/rec.games.trading-cards.jyhad/msg/a3368d88ac2eb79e),
> the other minions cannot play again neither CL nor KRC, due to DT. A player
> copy/pasted a quote from IRC saying other minions could call a KRC, since :
>
> '[14:45] <LSJ> The CL + KRC action is not the same action as the KRC action.
> [14:46] <LSJ> So a different minion could call a KRC. '
>
>
>
> Is the ruling of 2000 obsolete or is the quote from IRC wrong ?
The 2000 ruling is obsolete.
Stone
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de
news:c8%al.14078$c45...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Stone wrote:
> >
> > Is the ruling of 2000 obsolete or is the quote from IRC wrong ?
>
> The 2000 ruling is obsolete.
ok, a few questions to check if previous rulings are obsolete as well :
1/ in the same scenario, When DT is played, only the KRC returns to the hand
and the CL is discarded, right ?
2/ After the referendum called with CL+KRC, Echo of Harmonies is played
(After the referendum, move the political action card used to call the
referendum from your ash heap to this vampire, face down. This vampire may
play the political action card as if from your hand (requirements and cost
apply as normal).Only the KRC is returned to hand, the CL remains in the ash
heap ?
3/ You cannot play Direct Intervention on the KRC, i.e. the KRC is not
considered "played in the normal fashion" ?
4/ In the scenario : the CL+KRC referendum passes ; before another
referendum is called, the controller of the minion who called the CL+KRC is
ousted. CL's effet will still happen if another referendum is called,
similar to the "NRA PAC's effect, once triggered, will happen even if the
controller is ousted" ?
5/ Is the TOM 19950921 ruling (about prohibiting a blood hunt via CL)
entirely obsolete, or is Bernard, the Scourge's ability (Bernard can call a
blood hunt on a vampire of capacity 4 or less as a +1 stealth political
action) just an exception to this ruling ? Could Bernard call a blood hunt
via CL ?
thanks
Stone
LSJ
> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de
> news:c8%al.14078$c45...@nlpi065.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> Stone wrote:
>>> Is the ruling of 2000 obsolete or is the quote from IRC wrong ?
>> The 2000 ruling is obsolete.
>
> ok, a few questions to check if previous rulings are obsolete as well :
> 1/ in the same scenario,
Context (same scenario):
>> If a vampire calls a vote with Charming Lobby and it is Delayed,
>> are they prohibited from playing Charming Lobby again that turn
>> by DT, or from playing the second vote again that turn?
>
> Both, since CL is a political action.
I said above that the ruling was obsolete, but I didn't actually look at the
ruling, I just assumed that it contradicted the IRC quote, and the IRC ruling is
correct.
IRC quote:
> '[14:45] <LSJ> The CL + KRC action is not the same action as the KRC action.
> [14:46] <LSJ> So a different minion could call a KRC. '
Both are true, however.
The 2000 ruling addresses the non-repeatable aspect of political actions.
The vampire successfully taking a CL+KRC political action that gets delayed
cannot attempt another CL+KRC political action nor a plain KRC political action
nor any other political action.
> When DT is played, only the KRC returns to the hand
> and the CL is discarded, right ?
Right.
> 2/ After the referendum called with CL+KRC, Echo of Harmonies is played
> (After the referendum, move the political action card used to call the
> referendum from your ash heap to this vampire, face down. This vampire may
> play the political action card as if from your hand (requirements and cost
> apply as normal).Only the KRC is returned to hand, the CL remains in the ash
> heap ?
Correct.
> 3/ You cannot play Direct Intervention on the KRC, i.e. the KRC is not
> considered "played in the normal fashion" ?
Correct.
> 4/ In the scenario : the CL+KRC referendum passes ; before another
> referendum is called, the controller of the minion who called the CL+KRC is
> ousted. CL's effet will still happen if another referendum is called,
> similar to the "NRA PAC's effect, once triggered, will happen even if the
> controller is ousted" ?
Correct.
> 5/ Is the TOM 19950921 ruling (about prohibiting a blood hunt via CL)
> entirely obsolete, or is Bernard, the Scourge's ability (Bernard can call a
> blood hunt on a vampire of capacity 4 or less as a +1 stealth political
> action) just an exception to this ruling ? Could Bernard call a blood hunt
> via CL ?
Tom's ruling (clarification, really, since it's impossible to play CL at that
point) is about the non-action blood hunt. It is not obsolete, it's still
inherent in the fact that you cannot play between diablerie and the resulting
bloodhunt referendum.
Bernard's ability is an action, so could be part of a CL.
Stone
> Stone wrote:
> The 2000 ruling addresses the non-repeatable aspect of political actions.
>
> The vampire successfully taking a CL+KRC political action that gets
delayed
> cannot attempt another CL+KRC political action nor a plain KRC political
action
> nor any other political action.
ah. I had thought the "they" in that post ('are they prohibited from playing
Charming Lobby again that turn by DT, or from playing the second vote again
that turn?') was referring to the other minions. My bad.
thanks
Stone
LSJ
Mmm. A problem stemming from using a plural pronoun for a singular antecedent.
Interesting. :-)
How's this:
Is xe is prohibited from playing Charming Lobby or KRC again that turn?
Yes.
Stone
"LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> a écrit dans le message de news: Ev2bl.14097>
>
> Is xe is prohibited from playing Charming Lobby or KRC again that turn?
> Yes.
nah, you can do better. I dunno, maybe design a card like "Stone, xe who
judges" or something. I dare you ! :p
Kevin M.
> Stone wrote:
>> "LSJ" <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> Stone wrote:
>>> The 2000 ruling addresses the non-repeatable
>>> aspect of political actions.
>>>
>>> The vampire successfully taking a CL+KRC political action that
>>> gets delayed cannot attempt another CL+KRC political action
>>> nor a plain KRC political action nor any other political action.
>>
>> ah. I had thought the "they" in that post ('are they prohibited from
>> playing Charming Lobby again that turn by DT, or from playing the
>> second vote again that turn?') was referring to the other minions.
>> My bad.
>
> Mmm. A problem stemming from using a plural pronoun
> for a singular antecedent. Interesting. :-)
>
> How's this:
>
> Is xe is prohibited from playing Charming Lobby or KRC again that
> turn? Yes.
Now Scott, you know very well that the problem would have been solved by
using proper grammar (e.g. "...is he...") and that there is no need to
change the English language (e.g. "xe") to solve the problem. Changing
the language is due to the need to change another, differently perceived
problem -- in this case, some kind of desire for gender-neutrality.
Kevin M., Prince of Las Vegas
"Know your enemy, and know yourself; in one-thousand battles
you shall never be in peril." -- Sun Tzu, *The Art of War*
"Contentment... Complacency... Catastrophe!" -- Joseph Chevalier
Please visit VTESville daily! http://vtesville.myminicity.com/
Las Vegas NAQ 2009! http://members.cox.net/vtesinlv/
LSJ
> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> Is xe is prohibited from playing Charming Lobby or KRC again that
>> turn? Yes.
>
> Now Scott, you know very well that the problem would have been solved by
> using proper grammar (e.g. "...is he...") and that there is no need to
> change the English language (e.g. "xe") to solve the problem. Changing
> the language is due to the need to change another, differently perceived
> problem -- in this case, some kind of desire for gender-neutrality.
(Hmm. I thought you would be aware that this has already been addressed at
length on this group.)
To sum up:
"they" is also "proper grammar".
"they" has a problem in that it is plural.
"he" has a problem of similar nature in that it is masculine.
It's not a question of "desire" for gender neutrality. It is, rather, awareness
that some vampires are singular and feminine. See also doctors.
English is a living language; not every change visited upon it met some
arbitrary criterion of "need".
James Coupe
>Now Scott, you know very well that the problem would have been solved by
>using proper grammar (e.g. "...is he...") and that there is no need to
>change the English language (e.g. "xe") to solve the problem.
Using the third-person plural as a neuter singular has been established
in the English language for hundreds of years - there's nothing improper
about it. The OED cites it existing in 1526 meaning "he or she", just
like it often does today.
--
James Coupe
PGP Key: 0x5D623D5D YOU ARE IN ERROR.
EBD690ECD7A1FB457CA2 NO-ONE IS SCREAMING.
13D7E668C3695D623D5D THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION.
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. <you...@imaspammer.org> wrote:
>>Now Scott, you know very well that the problem would have been solved
>>by using proper grammar (e.g. "...is he...") and that there is no
>>need to change the English language (e.g. "xe") to solve the problem.
>
> Using the third-person plural as a neuter singular has been
> established in the English language for hundreds of years - there's
> nothing improper about it. The OED cites it existing in 1526 meaning
> "he or she", just like it often does today.
Even though I believe having used 'is he' would have been the best, most
clearly understood way to have used the English language in the sentence
in question, I am glad to see that you're agreeing with me that there was
no need for any odd, new words to be added to the English language in
order to make the sentence in question properly understood. ;)
Kevin M.
> Kevin M. wrote:
>> LSJ <vte...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>>> Is xe is prohibited from playing Charming Lobby or KRC again that
>>> turn? Yes.
>>
>> Now Scott, you know very well that the problem would have been
>> solved by using proper grammar (e.g. "...is he...") and that there
>> is no need to change the English language (e.g. "xe") to solve the
>> problem. Changing
>> the language is due to the need to change another, differently
>> perceived problem -- in this case, some kind of desire for
>> gender-neutrality.
>
> (Hmm. I thought you would be aware that this has already been
> addressed at length on this group.)
Obviously I am, as you very well know. ;)
> To sum up:
>
> "they" is also "proper grammar".
>
> "they" has a problem in that it is plural.
> "he" has a problem of similar nature in that it is masculine.
[snip rest]
"He" only has an issue if the user has a desire for gender-neutrality,
which IME wasn't a historical issue until recently (although I am sure
someone will suggest that women throughout the centuries have always had a
problem with it) and even today doesn't rise to the level of needing
*some* kind of fix.
But as I think you'll continue to choose the awkward, new, unknown option,
and that I'll choose to believe it will never ever be a necessary option
in the spoken or written English language, I'll stop cluttering the
newsgroup and let it drop until something egregious takes place. Enjoy.
:)
Kevin "Can't We All Just Get Along?" M., Prince of Las Vegas
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> James Coupe <ja...@zephyr.org.uk> wrote:
> >>Now Scott, you know very well that the problem would have been solved
> >>by using proper grammar (e.g. "...is he...") and that there is no
> >>need to change the English language (e.g. "xe") to solve the problem.
>
> > Using the third-person plural as a neuter singular has been
> > established in the English language for hundreds of years - there's
> > nothing improper about it. The OED cites it existing in 1526 meaning
> > "he or she", just like it often does today.
>
> Even though I believe having used 'is he' would have been the best, most
> clearly understood way to have used the English language in the sentence
> in question, I am glad to see that you're agreeing with me that there was
> no need for any odd, new words to be added to the English language in
> order to make the sentence in question properly understood. ;)
Since we are talking about a vampire, and a living corpse, why not
refer to the thing as "it". In the English language, small children
of undetermined sex often get referred to as "it". Surely the vampire
deserves no greater respect. Or are we concerned that its feelings
may be hurt?
LSJ
> Since we are talking about a vampire, and a living corpse, why not
> refer to the thing as "it". In the English language, small children
> of undetermined sex often get referred to as "it".
Not really, since it's taken usually as an insult by one or both of the parents
or guardians.
> Surely the vampire
> deserves no greater respect. Or are we concerned that its feelings
> may be hurt?
No. We're concerned about using a suitable word.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
LSJ wrote:
> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Since we are talking about a vampire, and a living corpse, why not
> > refer to the thing as "it". In the English language, small children
> > of undetermined sex often get referred to as "it".
>
> Not really, since it's taken usually as an insult by one or both of the parents
> or guardians.
Yes, really. And it is considered perfectly acceptable in the right
contexts. I have never known a parent to take offense when asked "Is
it a boy or a girl?" Moreover, they generally answer using the same
language. "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!" is the traditional format
of the announcement of the child's sex. It even gets printed on
banners and greeting cards.
Of course, once the child's sex is determined, then it becomes
disrespectful. And of course, we should have far more respect for
real children than for fictional vampires.
LSJ
> Yes, really. And it is considered perfectly acceptable in the right
> contexts. I have never known a parent to take offense when asked "Is
> it a boy or a girl?" Moreover, they generally answer using the same
> language. "It's a boy!" or "It's a girl!" is the traditional format
> of the announcement of the child's sex. It even gets printed on
> banners and greeting cards.
>
Ah. Yes, if the context is one ascribing gender, sure. I thought you were
talking about the general case.
Ask any mother holding a baby: "What's it's name?", though, and see how the
gender absence seems insulting.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Surely the vampire
> > deserves no greater respect. Or are we concerned that its feelings
> > may be hurt?
>
> No. We're concerned about using a suitable word.
In that case, I will simply refer you to the classics:
"The amphibious existence of the vampire is sustained by daily
renewed slumber in the grave. Its horrible lust for living blood
supplies the vigor of its waking existence. The vampire is prone
to be fascinated with an engrossing vehemence, resembling
the passion of love, by particular persons. In pursuit of these
it will exercise inexhaustible patience and stratagem, for access
to a particular object may be obstructed in a hundred ways. It will
never desist until it has satiated its passion, and drained the very
life of its coveted victim. But it will, in these cases, husband and
protract its murderous enjoyment with the refinement of an epicure,
and
heighten it by the gradual approaches of an artful courtship. In these
cases it seems to yearn for something like sympathy and consent. In
ordinary ones it goes direct to its object, overpowers with violence,
and strangles and exhausts often at a single feast."
Carmilla, by J. Sheridan Le Fanu
jwjbw...@gmail.com
Well, in that case, obviously you should inquire as to the gender
first. Nonetheless, it is considered acceptable in any context where
ignorance of the sex is reasonably unavoidable.
"'If I don't take this child away with me,' thought Alice, 'they're
sure to kill it in a day or two. Wouldn't it be murder to leave it
behind?'"
-- Alice in Wonderland, by Lewis Carroll
LSJ
> LSJ wrote:
>> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> Surely the vampire
>>> deserves no greater respect. Or are we concerned that its feelings
>>> may be hurt?
>> No. We're concerned about using a suitable word.
>
> In that case, I will simply refer you to the classics:
Sure, sure. And Shakespeare used "they" for singular. And English is a living
language. And so on.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
I merely suggested a suitable word. I'm not sure what Shakespeare
has to do with it. Le Fanu wrote in 1841, and don't think the word
"it" has evolved in meaning since then. I could probably find a more
modern quote if you prefer, but the classics are readily searchable on
Gutenberg.
Some folks have a different attitude towards Vampires than Le Fanu
did, but that's a whole different issue. You said you were not
concerned with showing them respect, and I took your word for it.
LSJ
> Some folks have a different attitude towards Vampires than Le Fanu
> did, but that's a whole different issue. You said you were not
> concerned with showing them respect, and I took your word for it.
Indeed. The whole thing has nothing to do with showing respect to fictional
creatures represented on cardboard.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
So ... you were agreeing with me? I'm confused now.
LSJ
The decision to use xe or "it" or "he" or "they" or "he or she" when referring
to a single vampire who may be masculine or feminine was not being discussed in
terms of the respect to be shown to the fictional vampire.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
It came up when I proposed "it" as an alternative to the others; and
then mentioned the issue only to anticipate, and dismiss, the only
objection to "it" that I could think of.
LSJ
If "with me" means this latest little diversion of "respect need not be shown to
vampires", then yes, as clearly and explicitly covered already.
If "with me" means what you started with, that "it" is an acceptable term for
refering to a singular entity that happens to be of unknown gender, either
masculine or feminine, then no, as clearly and explicitly covered already.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbw...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 5:05 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> On Jan 14, 8:41 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >>>> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>>>> Some folks have a different attitude towards Vampires than Le Fanu
> >>>>> did, but that's a whole different issue. You said you were not
> >>>>> concerned with showing them respect, and I took your word for it.
> >>>> Indeed. The whole thing has nothing to do with showing respect to fictional
> >>>> creatures represented on cardboard.
> >>> So ... you were agreeing with me? I'm confused now.
> >> The decision to use xe or "it" or "he" or "they" or "he or she" when referring
> >> to a single vampire who may be masculine or feminine was not being discussed
> >> in terms of the respect to be shown to the fictional vampire.
> >
> > It came up when I proposed "it" as an alternative to the others; and
> > then mentioned the issue only to anticipate, and dismiss, the only
> > objection to "it" that I could think of.
> >
> > So ... you were agreeing with me?
>
> If "with me" means this latest little diversion of "respect need not be shown to
> vampires", then yes, as clearly and explicitly covered already.
So I gathered. And yet ... I sensed hostility. Hence my confusion.
What's up with the "latest little diversion" crack?
> If "with me" means what you started with, that "it" is an acceptable term for
> refering to a singular entity that happens to be of unknown gender, either
> masculine or feminine, then no, as clearly and explicitly covered already.
First I've heard of it. We discussed CHILDREN, and I am not even sure
we disagreed about that. I said that it was "often" acceptable to
refer to babies as "it"; you said it was not acceptable in the
"general case". Is that disagreement? You gave an example where it
was not appropriate, and I agreed. I gave examples where it was
appropriate, and you either agreed, or were silent. If we do
disagree, then I'm not sure where the disagreement lies. After all,
my central point was that "it" was far less appropriate for small
children than it was for vampires. My suggestion was to use the term
for vampires, not for small children.
You never disagreed with my central point, that "it" was an acceptable
way to refer to a vampire of indeterminate gender.
But here's another author who thinks that "it" is an appropriate term
for a singular entity who happens to be of indeterminate gender --
even for an entity far more honorable than a vampire:
http://www.gutenberg.org/dirs/etext97/fivit10.txt
(Purely by coincidence, and not in any way connected to the titular
non-human entity, I just happened to come across the following
sentence in the first chapter, referring to 5 children of both
genders: "Everyone got its legs kicked or its feet trodden on in the
scramble to get out of the carriage that very minute, but no one
seemed to
mind.")
LSJ
> What's up with the "latest little diversion" crack?
As indicated, the question of whether or not vampires deserve respect doesn't
factor in. If they do, then "it" is not a suitable replacement for "he or she".
If they don't, "it" is still not a suitable replacement (IMO). With that in
mind, I called the tangent a diversion.
>> If "with me" means what you started with, that "it" is an acceptable term for
>> refering to a singular entity that happens to be of unknown gender, either
>> masculine or feminine, then no, as clearly and explicitly covered already.
>
> First I've heard of it. We discussed CHILDREN, and I am not even sure
> we disagreed about that. I said that it was "often" acceptable to
> refer to babies as "it"; you said it was not acceptable in the
> "general case". Is that disagreement?
If you disagree with the general case bit, sure.
> You gave an example where it
> was not appropriate, and I agreed. I gave examples where it was
> appropriate, and you either agreed, or were silent. If we do
> disagree, then I'm not sure where the disagreement lies.
I claim that "it" is not appropriate for an entity that should be referred to
with gender (like a baby or an adult or a vampire who still resembles a person;
vampires like Sasha Vykos can muddle their gender alignment suitably enough to
effectively be genderless, and therefore referred to as "it"). It is my belief
that you disagree on this point, either on the referring to a
gender-reference-warranting entity with "it" or to the validity of the claim
that vampires that are still aligned with some gender warrant being referred to
with a gender reference.
> After all,
> my central point was that "it" was far less appropriate for small
> children than it was for vampires. My suggestion was to use the term
> for vampires, not for small children.
And I disagree on that point. I suggest that the a non-neuter term ("xe" or
"they" or "he or she") would be appropriate and that a neuter term ("it") would
not be.
>
> You never disagreed with my central point, that "it" was an acceptable
> way to refer to a vampire of indeterminate gender.
I have. And I still do. Gendered but unknown is different than genderless.
> But here's another author [...]
Yes, there are many examples. Both of "it" and "he or she" and "they".
Chris Berger
> LSJ wrote:
>
> > If "with me" means this latest little diversion of "respect need not be shown to
> > vampires", then yes, as clearly and explicitly covered already.
>
> So I gathered. And yet ... I sensed hostility. Hence my confusion.
> What's up with the "latest little diversion" crack?
>
your posts, as they progress in a particular thread, seem to be less
and less about V:TES as the thread goes on, and more and more about
you having a lot of time on your hands and wanting to try to draw
people into irrelevant and bottomless discussions that have nothing to
do with V:TES? Just a guess.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > What's up with the "latest little diversion" crack?
>
> As indicated, the question of whether or not vampires deserve respect doesn't
> factor in. If they do, then "it" is not a suitable replacement for "he or she".
> If they don't, "it" is still not a suitable replacement (IMO). With that in
> mind, I called the tangent a diversion.
It is a factor (not the only factor) in my book, and is one of the
reasons animals are treated differently from humans. I think it was a
factor for Le Fanu, when he wrote Carmilla -- he would not have spoke
of an adult human -- even a fictional one -- in the same way. You
obviously disagree that it should be a factor, and are obviously free
to define your own terms as you please, but I don't see how that makes
my attitude a "diversion".
> >> If "with me" means what you started with, that "it" is an acceptable term for
> >> refering to a singular entity that happens to be of unknown gender, either
> >> masculine or feminine, then no, as clearly and explicitly covered already.
>
> > First I've heard of it. We discussed CHILDREN, and I am not even sure
> > we disagreed about that. I said that it was "often" acceptable to
> > refer to babies as "it"; you said it was not acceptable in the
> > "general case". Is that disagreement?
>
> If you disagree with the general case bit, sure.
I had no basis for disagreeing with "the general case bit" until and
unless I knew what you mean by "the general case". When you used it,
I still thought you were referring to babies, but seemed to have in
mind cases where the mother was present and available both to take
offense and answer gender inquiries..
> > You gave an example where it
> > was not appropriate, and I agreed. I gave examples where it was
> > appropriate, and you either agreed, or were silent. If we do
> > disagree, then I'm not sure where the disagreement lies.
>
> I claim that "it" is not appropriate for an entity that should be referred to
> with gender (like a baby or an adult or a vampire who still resembles a person;
> vampires like Sasha Vykos can muddle their gender alignment suitably enough to
> effectively be genderless, and therefore referred to as "it").
This only started to become clear in your last post. Before that, we
discussed babies, who I believed should be referred to as "he" or
"she" when at all possible, but who I distinguished from Vampires.
> It is my belief
> that you disagree on this point, either on the referring to a
> gender-reference-warranting entity with "it" or to the validity of the claim
> that vampires that are still aligned with some gender warrant being referred to
> with a gender reference.
Corpses, Robots, Zombies, Ghosts, Vampires and Animals can reasonably
be called "he" or "she" if their "gender" is known. But "it" is also
perfectly appropriate for them, IMO, especially when their "gender" is
unknown.
It is, for instance, extremely commonly applied to Animals, the vast
majority of whom do in fact have a gender.
> > After all,
> > my central point was that "it" was far less appropriate for small
> > children than it was for vampires. My suggestion was to use the term
> > for vampires, not for small children.
>
> And I disagree on that point. I suggest that the a non-neuter term ("xe" or
> "they" or "he or she") would be appropriate and that a neuter term ("it") would
> not be.
Fair enough. How do you pronounce "xe", by the way?
> > You never disagreed with my central point, that "it" was an acceptable
> > way to refer to a vampire of indeterminate gender.
>
> I have. And I still do.
That did not start to become clear to me until your last post.
> Gendered but unknown is different than genderless.
Sure it is. But in my book "it" need not signify "genderless".
Philogists can call it a "neuter pronoun" if they like -- that is not
meant to severely restrict and define its acceptable use. I think
that "it" can be used to refer to "gendered but unknown". This is
almost never appropriate with adult humans, rarely appropriate with
children (perhaps in part because they are thought of as less strongly
gendered; perhaps in part because people respect them less and/or
think they can get away with calling them what they please; perhaps in
part because people know they are too young to be hurt and offended by
one's choice of words), but perfectly appropriate with animals. Also
vampires, demons, ghosts, zombies, robots, space-aliens and inanimate
corpses.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
Kevin was discussing language. I responded to Kevin. Perhaps it was
wrong of me to perpetuate an somewhat off-topic discussion, but I am
hardly the only one. And what I tried to express was specifically
related to vampires.
But apparently you would prefer to discuss my character flaws instead.
Blooded Sand
OT. see? Not so hard to understand. Also trolling.
Move along people, nothing to see here, do not feed the trolls please.
Unless they have popcorn... ;)
LSJ
> On Jan 14, 9:44 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
>>> What's up with the "latest little diversion" crack?
>> As indicated, the question of whether or not vampires deserve respect doesn't
>> factor in. If they do, then "it" is not a suitable replacement for "he or she".
>> If they don't, "it" is still not a suitable replacement (IMO). With that in
>> mind, I called the tangent a diversion.
>
> It is a factor (not the only factor) in my book, and is one of the
> reasons animals are treated differently from humans.
Yes, it is a factor for animals.
It is not a factor for these fictional vampires masquerading as gendered people.
Perhaps one of the reasons is that most animals' genders cannot be determined by
people at a glance. I couldn't say.
> I think it was a
> factor for Le Fanu, when he wrote Carmilla -- he would not have spoke
> of an adult human -- even a fictional one -- in the same way. You
> obviously disagree that it should be a factor,
I think a lot of authors of vampire books have written using gendered pronouns
for vampires. Stoker, Rice, et al. But I wasn't interested in taking a straw
poll, since it would prove nothing.
and are obviously free
> to define your own terms as you please, but I don't see how that makes
> my attitude a "diversion".
The attitude is not at issue (so would be another diversion).
Calling it a diversion was simply an observation of its effect, not its intention.
>>>> If "with me" means what you started with, that "it" is an acceptable term for
>>>> refering to a singular entity that happens to be of unknown gender, either
>>>> masculine or feminine, then no, as clearly and explicitly covered already.
>>> First I've heard of it. We discussed CHILDREN, and I am not even sure
>>> we disagreed about that. I said that it was "often" acceptable to
>>> refer to babies as "it"; you said it was not acceptable in the
>>> "general case". Is that disagreement?
>> If you disagree with the general case bit, sure.
>
> I had no basis for disagreeing with "the general case bit" until and
> unless I knew what you mean by "the general case". When you used it,
> I still thought you were referring to babies, but seemed to have in
> mind cases where the mother was present and available both to take
> offense and answer gender inquiries..
Yes. Babies. When not establishing gender.
Referring to a baby as "it" in general cases (rather than the cases of
establishing gender).
>
>>> You gave an example where it
>>> was not appropriate, and I agreed. I gave examples where it was
>>> appropriate, and you either agreed, or were silent. If we do
>>> disagree, then I'm not sure where the disagreement lies.
>> I claim that "it" is not appropriate for an entity that should be referred to
>> with gender (like a baby or an adult or a vampire who still resembles a person;
>> vampires like Sasha Vykos can muddle their gender alignment suitably enough to
>> effectively be genderless, and therefore referred to as "it").
>
> This only started to become clear in your last post. Before that, we
> discussed babies, who I believed should be referred to as "he" or
> "she" when at all possible, but who I distinguished from Vampires.
OK. Conceded.
>> It is my belief
>> that you disagree on this point, either on the referring to a
>> gender-reference-warranting entity with "it" or to the validity of the claim
>> that vampires that are still aligned with some gender warrant being referred to
>> with a gender reference.
>
> Corpses, Robots, Zombies, Ghosts, Vampires and Animals can reasonably
> be called "he" or "she" if their "gender" is known. But "it" is also
> perfectly appropriate for them, IMO, especially when their "gender" is
> unknown.
Some things that seem inanimate or genderless or which seem gendered but which
also seem inhuman is clear (or when the speaker wishes to alluded to a real or
imagined inhumane-seeming gendered entity) may be referred to as "it", sure.
> It is, for instance, extremely commonly applied to Animals, the vast
> majority of whom do in fact have a gender.
Yes.
>>> After all,
>>> my central point was that "it" was far less appropriate for small
>>> children than it was for vampires. My suggestion was to use the term
>>> for vampires, not for small children.
>> And I disagree on that point. I suggest that the a non-neuter term ("xe" or
>> "they" or "he or she") would be appropriate and that a neuter term ("it") would
>> not be.
>
> Fair enough. How do you pronounce "xe", by the way?
The standard English way: "zee" (see also Xerox).
>>> You never disagreed with my central point, that "it" was an acceptable
>>> way to refer to a vampire of indeterminate gender.
>> I have. And I still do.
>
> That did not start to become clear to me until your last post.
OK.
>> Gendered but unknown is different than genderless.
>
> Sure it is. But in my book "it" need not signify "genderless".
> Philogists can call it a "neuter pronoun" if they like -- that is not
> meant to severely restrict and define its acceptable use. I think
> that "it" can be used to refer to "gendered but unknown". This is
> almost never appropriate with adult humans, rarely appropriate with
> children (perhaps in part because they are thought of as less strongly
> gendered; perhaps in part because people respect them less and/or
> think they can get away with calling them what they please; perhaps in
> part because people know they are too young to be hurt and offended by
> one's choice of words), but perfectly appropriate with animals. Also
> vampires, demons, ghosts, zombies, robots, space-aliens and inanimate
> corpses.
The things you list are things whose gender identity isn't obvious at a glance
or which seem inanimate or inhuman.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 14, 9:44 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>> What's up with the "latest little diversion" crack?
> >> As indicated, the question of whether or not vampires deserve respect doesn't
> >> factor in. If they do, then "it" is not a suitable replacement for "he or she".
> >> If they don't, "it" is still not a suitable replacement (IMO). With that in
> >> mind, I called the tangent a diversion.
>
> > It is a factor (not the only factor) in my book, and is one of the
> > reasons animals are treated differently from humans.
>
> Yes, it is a factor for animals.
> It is not a factor for these fictional vampires masquerading as gendered people.
It is a factor in my book, as I said. Nor am I alone. But it was
never my intent to suggest that others may not choose their own
words. I said it was a suitable term, not a mandatory one.
> > I think it was a
> > factor for Le Fanu, when he wrote Carmilla -- he would not have spoke
> > of an adult human -- even a fictional one -- in the same way. You
> > obviously disagree that it should be a factor,
>
> I think a lot of authors of vampire books have written using gendered pronouns
> for vampires. Stoker, Rice, et al.
So does Le Fanu – but that’s beside the point. In fact, all three
authors also use “it” to refer to vampires. From Anne Rice: “‘It came
into the inn?’ ‘They said she went out to it .... They said it lured
her ... she was trying to give it water ....” (Interview with the
Vampire). From Bram Stoker: “I call the thing before us Lucy because
it bore her shape” (Dracula). Might as well throw in Stephen King: “A
vampire tried to get me last night. It almost did too .... It was
Danny Glick” (Salem’s Lot). If I search, I can probably find similar
usage in WoD materials.
Moreever, both Anne Rice and Bram Stoker repeatedly refer to small
children as “it” when their gender is undetermined. This is a
universally accepted practice.
> But I wasn't interested in taking a straw
> poll, since it would prove nothing.
I’m not sure what is being disputed. I said it was a suitable term.
If you dispute this, I can only refer you to convention and accepted
practice. Otherwise we must agree to disagree.
> and are obviously free
>
> > to define your own terms as you please, but I don't see how that makes
> > my attitude a "diversion".
>
> The attitude is not at issue (so would be another diversion).
> Calling it a diversion was simply an observation of its effect, not its intention.
I still don’t understand you.
> Some things that seem inanimate or genderless or which seem gendered but which
> also seem inhuman is clear (or when the speaker wishes to alluded to a real or
> imagined inhumane-seeming gendered entity) may be referred to as "it", sure.
There is no rule that one’s choice of words must pay deference to how
something “seems”. It may pay deference to what the speaker regards
as reality. In any event, vampires don’t necessarily “seem” like
“gendered people”. They can seem like corpses, like mist, or like
beasts.
LSJ
> On Jan 15, 6:34 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> But I wasn't interested in taking a straw
>> poll, since it would prove nothing.
>
> I’m not sure what is being disputed. I said it was a suitable term.
> If you dispute this, I can only refer you to convention and accepted
> practice. Otherwise we must agree to disagree.
"They" also meets that criteria, yet I do not find "they" suitable, either, for
equivalent reasons (one unsuitable in number, the other in gender).
Indeed, that unsuitability is exactly what led to the misunderstanding the
original poster in this thread had.
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 15, 6:34 am, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> But I wasn't interested in taking a straw
> >> poll, since it would prove nothing.
>
> > I’m not sure what is being disputed. I said it was a suitable term.
> > If you dispute this, I can only refer you to convention and accepted
> > practice. Otherwise we must agree to disagree.
>
> "They" also meets that criteria, yet I do not find "they" suitable, either, for
> equivalent reasons (one unsuitable in number, the other in gender).
"They" referring back to a singular antecedent, does not meet the
criteria of convention and accepted practice.
> Indeed, that unsuitability is exactly what led to the misunderstanding the
> original poster in this thread had.
Right. Hence the hostility to such usage that is universally shown by
editors and english teachers. But I am not an advocate for such usage.
LSJ
> On Jan 16, 1:42 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
>> "They" also meets that criteria, yet I do not find "they" suitable, either, for
>> equivalent reasons (one unsuitable in number, the other in gender).
>
> "They" referring back to a singular antecedent, does not meet the
> criteria of convention and accepted practice.
Um, yeah, it does.
>
>> Indeed, that unsuitability is exactly what led to the misunderstanding the
>> original poster in this thread had.
>
> Right. Hence the hostility to such usage that is universally shown by
> editors and english teachers.
Not universally, no.
> But I am not an advocate for such usage.
Well, neither am I. I oppose unsuitable choices. Like both "they" and "it",
since each fails on some level (number or gender).
jwjbw...@gmail.com
> jwjbwhe...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Jan 16, 1:42 pm, LSJ <vtes...@white-wolf.com> wrote:
> >> "They" also meets that criteria, yet I do not find "they" suitable, either, for
> >> equivalent reasons (one unsuitable in number, the other in gender).
>
> > "They" referring back to a singular antecedent, does not meet the
> > criteria of convention and accepted practice.
>
> Um, yeah, it does.
Nope.
> >> Indeed, that unsuitability is exactly what led to the misunderstanding the
> >> original poster in this thread had.
>
> > Right. Hence the hostility to such usage that is universally shown by
> > editors and english teachers.
>
> Not universally, no.
Perhaps not. But if there is disagreement, there is no "convention
and accepted practice". I have no particular hostility to such usage
myself, provided it is used in a way that does not cause confusion.
The goal is always clarity of communication.
I have no strong feelings against "If any person shall try to cross
the bridge, they shall meet a troll", which is really being used in a
semi-plural sense (referring back to any one, which incorporates the
idea of every one), but would be vigorously opposed to: "A vampire
walked into the bar; then, they slew the bartender," or "A vampire
tried to get me last night; they almost did too; they were Danny
Glick" or (referring to a single vampire of undetermined gender) "they
lured her out of the inn; she tried to give them a drink of water."
> > But I am not an advocate for such usage.
>
> Well, neither am I. I oppose unsuitable choices. Like both "they" and "it",
> since each fails on some level (number or gender).
"It" does not fail on the level of gender --- unless "it" is defined
in a very narrow way that is contrary to convention and accepted
practice. Which you are free to do, of course.