Singular they practice

[Quinn C]

Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
naturally:

<https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>

| Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada
| win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World
| Cup in 2019. [...]
--
In the old days, the complaints about the passing of the
golden age were much more sophisticated.
-- James Hogg in alt.usage.english

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:51:06 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
> naturally:
>
> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>
>
> | Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada
> | win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World
> | Cup in 2019. [...]

I assume "Quinn" is some sort of collective. As in "NSYNC made their
Carnegie Hall debut at a misguided attempt to outscream the 1964
Beatles audience."

[Tony Cooper]

I take it you did not read the article. This "Quinn" is a 25 year-old
player from Toronto.

It is not this Quinn:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klWzVuxdygg


--

Tony Cooper Orlando Florida

[Paul Carmichael]

El Wed, 04 Aug 2021 12:51:01 -0400, Quinn C escribió:

> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
> naturally:
>
> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>
>
> | Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada |
> win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World |
> Cup in 2019. [...]

I really don't want to get involved in this, but if it's the women's
world cup, why can't you use the proper pronoun? Blokes can't compete, so
we're obviously talking about a girl.

Doesn't sound in the tiniest bit natural to me.


--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

[Paul Carmichael]

El Wed, 04 Aug 2021 18:21:48 -0400, Tony Cooper escribió:

>
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klWzVuxdygg


Heh. At the time, we all thought that was "quim".


--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

[Peter T. Daniels]

The point, moron, is not the factuality, but the point that our Quinn
was failing to make.

Afterward I realized my example would have been clearer with
"Queen" than with "NSYNC."

> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klWzVuxdygg

[CDB]

On 8/5/2021 5:50 AM, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> Tony Cooper escribió:

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klWzVuxdygg

> Heh. At the time, we all thought that was "quim".

Rey Aman always said so.

[CDB]

On 8/5/2021 5:49 AM, Paul Carmichael wrote:
> Quinn C escribió:

>> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
>> naturally:

>> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>

>> | Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped
>> Canada | win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA
>> Women’s World | Cup in 2019. [...]

> I really don't want to get involved in this, but if it's the women's
> world cup, why can't you use the proper pronoun? Blokes can't
> compete, so we're obviously talking about a girl.

> Doesn't sound in the tiniest bit natural to me.

[Quinny's] (preferred nickname) "preferred pronouns are 'they, them'".

No mention of possessive form.

[Quinn C]

* CDB:

> [Quinny's] (preferred nickname) "preferred pronouns are 'they, them'".
>
> No mention of possessive form.

I've occasionally encountered someone saying or writing their pronouns
as "they/them/their", but that seemed unnecessary to me. In spoken
communication, saying two of them, like "they/them" or "she/her" is a
useful amount of redundancy, because these are little words and you
might miss it when it's just one, but in writing, I usually find "they
pronouns" enough.

You find people give a list of subject forms, like "she/they". That
means they don't insist on one kind, or prefer not to be referred to by
the same pronoun each time.

I've never met anyone with "he/them/her" pronouns or any other exotic
combination, and I don't think it's within the human language capacity
to handle that. So the only case where it makes sense to me to give
three forms is with lesser known pronouns, e.g. "e/em/es" or
"per/per/per", because many of us just don't know how those inflect.

--
Quinn C
My pronouns are they/them
(or other gender-neutral ones)

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2021-08-05 09:49:11 +0000, Paul Carmichael said:

> El Wed, 04 Aug 2021 12:51:01 -0400, Quinn C escribió:
>
>> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
>> naturally:
>>
>> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>
>>
>> | Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada |
>> win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World |
>> Cup in 2019. [...]
>
>
> I really don't want to get involved in this, but if it's the women's
> world cup, why can't you use the proper pronoun? Blokes can't compete,

You're out of touch with the modern woke world. A bloke called Laurel
Hubbard competed in the New Zealand women's weightlifting selection at
the Olympics. An even more unsavoury bloke called Chris Chan has just
been jailed in a women's prison in Virginia after admitting that he
raped his mother, aged 79.

> so
> we're obviously talking about a girl.
>
> Doesn't sound in the tiniest bit natural to me.


--

Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Quinn C]

* Paul Carmichael:

> El Wed, 04 Aug 2021 12:51:01 -0400, Quinn C escribió:
>
>> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
>> naturally:
>>
>> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>
>>
>>| Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada |
>> win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World |
>> Cup in 2019. [...]
>
> I really don't want to get involved in this, but if it's the women's
> world cup, why can't you use the proper pronoun? Blokes can't compete, so
> we're obviously talking about a girl.

I'll be sure to use the proper pronoun for you, viz. "ass".

--
The seeds of new thought, sown in a ground that isn't prepared
to receive them, don't bear fruit.
-- Hedwig Dohm (1874), my translation

[musika]

On 05/08/2021 13:50, Quinn C wrote:
> * Paul Carmichael:
>
>> El Wed, 04 Aug 2021 12:51:01 -0400, Quinn C escribió:
>>
>>> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
>>> naturally:
>>>
>>> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>
>>>
>>> | Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada |
>>> win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World |
>>> Cup in 2019. [...]
>>
>> I really don't want to get involved in this, but if it's the women's
>> world cup, why can't you use the proper pronoun? Blokes can't compete, so
>> we're obviously talking about a girl.
>
> I'll be sure to use the proper pronoun for you, viz. "ass".
>

You just lost.

--
Ray
UK

[CDB]

On 8/5/2021 8:47 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> * CDB:

>> [Quinny's] (preferred nickname) "preferred pronouns are 'they,
>> them'".

>> No mention of a possessive form.

> I've occasionally encountered someone saying or writing their
> pronouns as "they/them/their", but that seemed unnecessary to me. In
> spoken communication, saying two of them, like "they/them" or
> "she/her" is a useful amount of redundancy, because these are little
> words and you might miss it when it's just one, but in writing, I
> usually find "they pronouns" enough.

> You find people give a list of subject forms, like "she/they". That
> means they don't insist on one kind, or prefer not to be referred to
> by the same pronoun each time.

> I've never met anyone with "he/them/her" pronouns or any other
> exotic combination, and I don't think it's within the human language
> capacity to handle that. So the only case where it makes sense to me
> to give three forms is with lesser known pronouns, e.g. "e/em/es" or
> "per/per/per", because many of us just don't know how those inflect.

I was explaining my use of the nickname instead of a pronoun.

[Quinn C]

* CDB:

And I explained (while casting a wider net) that when it's "they/them",
it'll be "their" as well.

[Quinn C]

* musika:

Well, yeah. It started with someone making me see ass' post in a quote,
which otherwise I wouldn't, and that was a loss for me already.

[Paul Carmichael]

El Thu, 05 Aug 2021 08:50:01 -0400, Quinn C escribió:

> * Paul Carmichael:
>
>> El Wed, 04 Aug 2021 12:51:01 -0400, Quinn C escribió:
>>
>>> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
>>> naturally:
>>>
>>> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>
>>>
>>>| Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada |
>>> win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World
>>> |
>>> Cup in 2019. [...]
>>
>> I really don't want to get involved in this, but if it's the women's
>> world cup, why can't you use the proper pronoun? Blokes can't compete,
>> so we're obviously talking about a girl.
>
> I'll be sure to use the proper pronoun for you, viz. "ass".

Are you being unpleasant?


--
Paul.

https://paulc.es/elpatio

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 04:45:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 6:21:54 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 14:12:54 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> >On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:51:06 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>
>> >> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
>> >> naturally:
>> >> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>
>> >> | Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada
>> >> | win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World
>> >> | Cup in 2019. [...]
>> >I assume "Quinn" is some sort of collective. As in "NSYNC made their
>> >Carnegie Hall debut at a misguided attempt to outscream the 1964
>> >Beatles audience."
>>
>> I take it you did not read the article. This "Quinn" is a 25 year-old
>> player from Toronto.
>>
>> It is not this Quinn:
>
>The point, moron, is not the factuality, but the point that our Quinn
>was failing to make.
>

Yes, we know that you are often bankrupt in the area of factuality in
your posts, but now is not the time to go into that chapter and verse.

>Afterward I realized my example would have been clearer with
>"Queen" than with "NSYNC."
>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klWzVuxdygg

[Tony Cooper]

Paul rasises an interesting point, though. Should a sports
journalist, writing about an entire team's actions on the field, use
the expected pronouns for most of the team members but switch to the
preferred pronouns of a single member of the team?

The sports journalist is writing for the mass market of readers of
sports articles, most of which would not be aware of the preferred
pronoun's meaning in context. Most readers would be totally confused
by the switch when "they" stands for a single person and think that
"they scored two goals" means that the entire team scored only two
goals when the final score was 3-nil.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 9:49:46 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 04:45:02 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 6:21:54 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> >> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 14:12:54 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> >> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> >On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:51:06 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> >
> >> >> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
> >> >> naturally:
> >> >> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>
> >> >> | Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada
> >> >> | win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World
> >> >> | Cup in 2019. [...]
> >> >I assume "Quinn" is some sort of collective. As in "NSYNC made their
> >> >Carnegie Hall debut at a misguided attempt to outscream the 1964
> >> >Beatles audience."
> >> I take it you did not read the article. This "Quinn" is a 25 year-old
> >> player from Toronto.
> >> It is not this Quinn:
> >The point, moron, is not the factuality, but the point that our Quinn
> >was failing to make.
>
> Yes, we know that you are often bankrupt in the area of factuality in
> your posts, but now is not the time to go into that chapter and verse.

I'll try making it even clearer for you, this one time (even though the
effort is pointless):

UPON READING THE OFFERED SENTENCE (that is not shouting;
that is emphasizing), I assume "Quinn" is some sort of collective.
As in "Queen made their Carnegie Hall debut at a misguided attempt
to outscream the 1964 Beatles audience." (Which, however, never
happened, and never will.)

(You're worse than Hongyi at grasping that sentences have
contexts, and that context must be taken into account when
interpreting a sentence. Even when doing so deprives you of
an opportunity to start a fight.)

It was perfectly obvious that Our Quinn was trying to offer an
example of "they" for a single person, and I was making it perfectly
clear that, absent any other information, the ordinary reader would
make the assumption that I stated.

It took a very long time for Eng. "you" to become the singular
pronoun, and it will take just as long for "they" to become a
singular pronoun.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 08:27:35 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

Which was a patently wrong assumption based, evidently, in not reading
the context that was easily available by clicking the link. Knowing
that now, why are you doubling-down on your error?

>As in "Queen made their Carnegie Hall debut at a misguided attempt
>to outscream the 1964 Beatles audience." (Which, however, never
>happened, and never will.)
>
>(You're worse than Hongyi at grasping that sentences have
>contexts, and that context must be taken into account when
>interpreting a sentence. Even when doing so deprives you of
>an opportunity to start a fight.)

It's laughable for you to bring up context when the reason you made
your gaffe was not determining the context.

>
>It was perfectly obvious that Our Quinn was trying to offer an
>example of "they" for a single person, and I was making it perfectly
>clear that, absent any other information, the ordinary reader would
>make the assumption that I stated.

No, the "ordinary reader" who read the entire article would not make
that assumption. The article clearly explained that this Quinn's
personal pronouns are "they/them". Some "ordinary readers" would not
be "woke" enough to understand that, but they would not have jumped on
the "collective" meaning instead.

>
>It took a very long time for Eng. "you" to become the singular
>pronoun, and it will take just as long for "they" to become a
>singular pronoun.
>
>> >Afterward I realized my example would have been clearer with
>> >"Queen" than with "NSYNC."

You are bragging that an example that had nothing to do with the
actual context improved your contribution?

[Quinn C]

* Tony Cooper:

That's not a point about sports journalists or mass markets, but a
general usage point. When using singular they, you need to be on the
lookout for possible ambiguity with plural they. Just as with singular
and plural you, where we've gotten used to this issue a few centuries
back.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:12:02 -0400, Quinn C

This particular article presented biographical information on one
specific player. However, I am expanding the topic to sports
journalism presented to the mass market based on Paul's question.

I believe that's allowed.

If you feel that Paul is an "ass" for questioning the need to use the
preferred pronouns, then you should either qualify that to be
restricted to articles about specific players or address the expanded
point.

On the subject of writing what is appropriate, to use terms like "ass"
and "moron" to describe posters that one is in disagreement with is
most inappropriate for this group.

[Quinn C]

* Tony Cooper:

> If you feel that Paul is an "ass" for questioning the need to use the
> preferred pronouns, then you should either qualify that to be
> restricted to articles about specific players or address the expanded
> point.

This "argument" is the reason why the turn of phrase "preferred
pronouns" is not preferred any more. We now usually say "my pronouns are
...". They're the correct pronouns, and others are incorrect.

> On the subject of writing what is appropriate, to use terms like "ass"
> and "moron" to describe posters that one is in disagreement with is
> most inappropriate for this group.

It's not about just a disagreement, but about an avowed unwillingness to
listen to people. "I decide who's a Jew", as Hermann Göring put it (and
maybe others before him.)

A reasonable question in this context is whether it's allowed to talk
about the whole team as "the women". I'd allow it, when I'm part of a
"women's" group, but I'm uncomfortable of being included in "the men".

That still happens in choir sometimes. It's better to say "the lower
voices". In most choirs I've been part of, there were some cis women in
the tenor section anyway.

[Peter T. Daniels]

I don't know why, but I never cease to be amazed at how dumb
you really are (or pretend to be?). The actual identity of the actual
perSon who chose wrong-number pronouns has NOTHING TO DO
WITH the meaning generated by the sentence in the brain of an
English-speaker.

> based, evidently, in not reading
> the context that was easily available by clicking the link. Knowing
> that now, why are you doubling-down on your error?

It's really unfathomable how stupid you really are.

> >As in "Queen made their Carnegie Hall debut at a misguided attempt
> >to outscream the 1964 Beatles audience." (Which, however, never
> >happened, and never will.)
> >(You're worse than Hongyi at grasping that sentences have
> >contexts, and that context must be taken into account when
> >interpreting a sentence. Even when doing so deprives you of
> >an opportunity to start a fight.)
>
> It's laughable for you to bring up context when the reason you made
> your gaffe was not determining the context.

Do you, moron, really not understand that linguistics studies (among
other things) the structure and interpretation of constructions WITHOUT
considering any real-world considerations?

Would you be unable to cnsider the ambiguity of the sentence
"Flying planes can be dangerous" without being givenany information
about who or what is flying, which planes are involved, and what the
danger might be?

> >It was perfectly obvious that Our Quinn was trying to offer an
> >example of "they" for a single person, and I was making it perfectly
> >clear that, absent any other information, the ordinary reader would
> >make the assumption that I stated.
>
> No, the "ordinary reader" who read the entire article

NO ONE WAS READING THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.

That one is yelling.

IT WAS A SENTENCE PRESENTED IN ISOLATION TO ILLUSTRATE
A GRAMMATICAL POINT.

> would not make
> that assumption. The article clearly explained that this Quinn's
> personal pronouns are "they/them". Some "ordinary readers" would not
> be "woke" enough to understand that, but they would not have jumped on
> the "collective" meaning instead.

They would have had no interest in reading the article.

> >It took a very long time for Eng. "you" to become the singular
> >pronoun, and it will take just as long for "they" to become a
> >singular pronoun.
> >> >Afterward I realized my example would have been clearer with
> >> >"Queen" than with "NSYNC."
>
> You are bragging that an example that had nothing to do with the
> actual context improved your contribution?

It was criminal that no one in the Indianoplace School District in the
early 1950s saw fit to place a few elementary linguistics lessons in
the curriculum, especially since just down the road a piece was (and
is) one of the absolutely most distinguished linguistics departments
in the world. You may have heard of it? Indiana University?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 12:12:09 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
> * Tony Cooper:

> > The sports journalist is writing for the mass market of readers of
> > sports articles, most of which would not be aware of the preferred
> > pronoun's meaning in context. Most readers would be totally confused
> > by the switch when "they" stands for a single person and think that
> > "they scored two goals" means that the entire team scored only two
> > goals when the final score was 3-nil.
>
> That's not a point about sports journalists or mass markets, but a
> general usage point. When using singular they, you need to be on the
> lookout for possible ambiguity with plural they. Just as with singular
> and plural you, where we've gotten used to this issue a few centuries
> back.

Which was precisely the point of my comment. Do you think it'll
penetrate any more clearly from you than from me?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 12:51:29 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:

> That still happens in choir sometimes. It's better to say "the lower
> voices". In most choirs I've been part of, there were some cis women in
> the tenor section anyway.

The Windy City Gay Chorus was not originally sex-specific -- SATB
would have been as welcome as TTBB -- but as it happened, few
women came to the organizational meeting (1980). For the first
several years, three women were included in the First Tenor section.

I got the choral director of the University of Chicago to come to a
concert (he was suitably impressed by the quality of the performance)
but he told me afterward that he could detect women's voices in the
group and looked around the group to try to find them.

(He had a three-year contract, which was extended for one year, after
which he moved to Duke University, from which he recently retired.
There were some budgetary problems with his ambitious programming
-- for instance, he hired Studs Terkel to narrate "Peter and the Wolf" as
part of a program of music concerning animals. It was of course delightful.)

[Sam Plusnet]

Do away with all pronouns and use the full name (and honorifics) for
everyone on all occasions.

It may be the only viable answer where individuals, who are acting as
part of a large group, each select their preferred pronouns and expect
them to be used in written reports of the group's activities.

--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[Quinn C]

* Sam Plusnet:

How did we ever cope with groups in which some members preferred "he",
while others preferred "she"?

--
Just because we had a thing for 150 years, don't presume that
you know me.
-- Darla, Angel S02E09

[Richard Heathfield]

Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them just
because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to decide how
other people use language.

--
Richard Heathfield
Email: rjh at cpax dot org dot uk
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29 July 1999
Sig line 4 vacant - apply within

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them just
> because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to decide how
> other people use language.

Ah, there's the old Heathfield. If he says something offensive, it's not
the offender's fault, it's the offendee's.

There may soon be a position available for him in the governorship
of New York State.

[Tony Cooper]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 10:13:38 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> >> >> >> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
>> >> >> >> naturally:
>> >> >> >> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>
>> >> >> >> | Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada
>> >> >> >> | win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World
>> >> >> >> | Cup in 2019. [...]

>> Which was a patently wrong assumption

>

>> >It was perfectly obvious that Our Quinn was trying to offer an
>> >example of "they" for a single person, and I was making it perfectly
>> >clear that, absent any other information, the ordinary reader would
>> >make the assumption that I stated.
>>
>> No, the "ordinary reader" who read the entire article
>
>NO ONE WAS READING THE ENTIRE ARTICLE.

Well, in "NO ONE" is just you, then the wrong assumption could be
made. However, I read the entire article before jumping to a
conclusion, and assume others did.

I love the way you yell out conclusions that are yours and yours alone
that are quite unlikely to be shared by others.

>
>That one is yelling.
>
>IT WAS A SENTENCE PRESENTED IN ISOLATION TO ILLUSTRATE
>A GRAMMATICAL POINT.

No, it was a sentence presented in a post that included a link that
allowed one to understand the context.

>> would not make
>> that assumption. The article clearly explained that this Quinn's
>> personal pronouns are "they/them". Some "ordinary readers" would not
>> be "woke" enough to understand that, but they would not have jumped on
>> the "collective" meaning instead.
>
>They would have had no interest in reading the article.

You *do* come up with some weird conclusions. The ordinary reader,
coming across something that doesn't make sense on the face of it,
might well follow the link.

In this case, the "ordinary reader" is reading an article about the
Olympics and soccer. The usage of "Quinn" and "they" would not make
sense on the face of it.

Even if the ordinary reader didn't follow the link, the "collective"
meaning would not necessarily have been taken, and that's being
generous.

I snipped your extraneous comments but those who are "afraid" to read
your posts have missed nothing of importance. As usual.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 3:53:45 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:

> You *do* come up with some weird conclusions. The ordinary reader,
> coming across something that doesn't make sense on the face of it,
> might well follow the link.

No. The ordinary reader coming across something that doesn't make
sense would say That doesn't make sense, I won't waste time trying to
figure it out, let alone do "research" to find out.

> In this case, the "ordinary reader" is reading an article about the
> Olympics and soccer. The usage of "Quinn" and "they" would not make
> sense on the face of it.

No, the ordinary reader is reading a sentence provided by Quinn inj
isolation to illustrate a usage of "singular they" that is confusing,
because in ordinary English, "they" is plural, not singular.

The purpose of the quotation was not to inform the reader about
some occurrence at the Olympics.

> Even if the ordinary reader didn't follow the link, the "collective"
> meaning would not necessarily have been taken, and that's being
> generous.
>
> I snipped your extraneous comments but those who are "afraid" to read
> your posts have missed nothing of importance. As usual.

That is an absolute lie. I can't help it that you're too stupid to realize it.
The explanation _explains_ your difficulty, but as various commentators
have noted, you have no interest in learning why your assumptions are
so often invalid.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT)

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

Moron

--
Bah, and indeed Humbug.

[Richard Heathfield]

Not only is Mr PTD a moron (in the colloquial sense, of course), but he
is also trying hard to offer offence, making his position
self-contradictory. This is amusingly common among those who criticise
others for using perfectly innocuous language in accordance with
perfectly well established usage on the grounds of its supposed
'offensiveness'.

If offensivess is not OK, he should stop trying for it. If it *is* ok,
what's his problem?

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:32:11 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 06/08/2021 09:10, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
> > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> >>> Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them just
> >>> because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to decide how
> >>> other people use language.
> >> Ah, there's the old Heathfield. If he says something offensive, it's not
> >> the offender's fault, it's the offendee's.
> >> There may soon be a position available for him in the governorship
> >> of New York State.
> > Moron

Mudd endorses racial bigotry and general offensiveness? One is not
surprised.

> Not only is Mr PTD a moron (in the colloquial sense, of course), but he
> is also trying hard to offer offence, making his position
> self-contradictory. This is amusingly common among those who criticise
> others for using perfectly innocuous language in accordance with
> perfectly well established usage on the grounds of its supposed
> 'offensiveness'.
>
> If offensivess is not OK, he should stop trying for it. If it *is* ok,
> what's his problem?

Sorry, but Heathfield for years demonstrated his ignorance-cum-bigotry
and does not get a free pass because he went away for a while.

Maybe Mudd thinks it's "cute" to pretend to be an old-style "curmudgeon"
and that lets him get away with being offensive to women, whom he
expects to excuse him on the grounds of his extreme age and lack of
"intent to offend."

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:18:48 -0700 (PDT)

"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:32:11 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > On 06/08/2021 09:10, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > >> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> > >>> Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them just
> > >>> because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to decide how
> > >>> other people use language.
> > >> Ah, there's the old Heathfield. If he says something offensive, it's not
> > >> the offender's fault, it's the offendee's.
> > >> There may soon be a position available for him in the governorship
> > >> of New York State.
> > > Moron
>
> Mudd endorses racial bigotry and general offensiveness? One is not
> surprised.

No-one here would read that into my reply.

>
> > Not only is Mr PTD a moron (in the colloquial sense, of course), but he
> > is also trying hard to offer offence, making his position
> > self-contradictory. This is amusingly common among those who criticise
> > others for using perfectly innocuous language in accordance with
> > perfectly well established usage on the grounds of its supposed
> > 'offensiveness'.

Clearly

> >
> > If offensivess is not OK, he should stop trying for it. If it *is* ok,
> > what's his problem?
>
> Sorry, but Heathfield for years demonstrated his ignorance-cum-bigotry
> and does not get a free pass because he went away for a while.
>
> Maybe Mudd thinks it's "cute" to pretend to be an old-style "curmudgeon"
> and that lets him get away with being offensive to women, whom he
> expects to excuse him on the grounds of his extreme age and lack of
> "intent to offend."

This is a total canard; pretending I'm being offensive to women (where on earth did he get that from?); when I merely used PTD's favourite offensive word back at him.

[Tony Cooper]

On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 15:44:21 +0100, "Kerr-Mudd, John" <ad...@127.0.0.1>
wrote:

>On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
>"Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:32:11 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> > On 06/08/2021 09:10, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>> > > On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
>> > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> > >> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>
>> > >>> Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them just
>> > >>> because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to decide how
>> > >>> other people use language.
>> > >> Ah, there's the old Heathfield. If he says something offensive, it's not
>> > >> the offender's fault, it's the offendee's.
>> > >> There may soon be a position available for him in the governorship
>> > >> of New York State.
>> > > Moron
>>
>> Mudd endorses racial bigotry and general offensiveness? One is not
>> surprised.
>
>No-one here would read that into my reply.

Evidently, PTD endorses death to those who belong to a political party
that he does not support. He feels that is a "good thing".

[Tak To]

On 8/5/2021 9:09 AM, Quinn C wrote:
> [...]

>
> And I explained (while casting a wider net) that when it's "they/them",
> it'll be "their" as well.

Theirs, theirself.

--
Tak
----------------------------------------------------------------+-----
Tak To ta...@alum.mit.eduxx
--------------------------------------------------------------------^^
[taode takto ~{LU5B~}] NB: trim the xx to get my real email addr

[Tak To]

On 8/5/2021 1:13 PM, Peter T. Daniels wrote:
> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 11:57:15 AM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 08:27:35 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>

>>> [...]

>>> UPON READING THE OFFERED SENTENCE (that is not shouting;
>>> that is emphasizing), I assume "Quinn" is some sort of collective.
>>
>> Which was a patently wrong assumption
>

> [...] The actual identity of the actual

> perSon who chose wrong-number pronouns has NOTHING TO DO
> WITH the meaning generated by the sentence in the brain of an
> English-speaker.

As seen in the "In Canadian terms" thread, not many here care
about the difference.

Although I would add "... in the first parse" to the latter.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 10:44:21 AM UTC-4, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:32:11 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> > > On 06/08/2021 09:10, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT)
> > > > "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> > > >> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >
> > > >>> Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them just
> > > >>> because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to decide how
> > > >>> other people use language.
> > > >> Ah, there's the old Heathfield. If he says something offensive, it's not
> > > >> the offender's fault, it's the offendee's.
> > > >> There may soon be a position available for him in the governorship
> > > >> of New York State.
> > > > Moron
> > Mudd endorses racial bigotry and general offensiveness? One is not
> > surprised.
>
> No-one here would read that into my reply.

To the extent that you endorse Heathfield's comments, the "reading"
is inevitable.

> > > Not only is Mr PTD a moron (in the colloquial sense, of course), but he
> > > is also trying hard to offer offence, making his position
> > > self-contradictory. This is amusingly common among those who criticise
> > > others for using perfectly innocuous language in accordance with
> > > perfectly well established usage on the grounds of its supposed
> > > 'offensiveness'.
> Clearly
> > > If offensivess is not OK, he should stop trying for it. If it *is* ok,
> > > what's his problem?
> > Sorry, but Heathfield for years demonstrated his ignorance-cum-bigotry
> > and does not get a free pass because he went away for a while.
> > Maybe Mudd thinks it's "cute" to pretend to be an old-style "curmudgeon"
> > and that lets him get away with being offensive to women, whom he
> > expects to excuse him on the grounds of his extreme age and lack of
> > "intent to offend."
>
> This is a total canard; pretending I'm being offensive to women (where on earth did he get that from?); when I merely used PTD's favourite offensive word back at him.

So you didn't actually read what Heathfield wrote, before adding your "me too"?

[Quinn C]

* Peter T. Daniels:

Which comment of yours?

If you mean the very first one, where you talk about a collective, then
no: in the context of the page they're drawn from, it's very clear that
these statements are about one person.

[Snidely]

Kerr-Mudd, John used thar keyboard to writen:

I think he was complaining about RH being offensive to women, and you
think that RH was being cute.

/dps

--
"What do you think of my cart, Miss Morland? A neat one, is not it?
Well hung: curricle-hung in fact. Come sit by me and we'll test the
springs."
(Speculative fiction by H.Lacedaemonian.)

[Peter T. Daniels]

Et tu, Qunne? You have drunk the kooperian Kool-Aid? "The context
of the page they're [scil. it's] drawn from" is NOT RELEVANT to the
single sentence that was singled out as an example. IN ISOLATION,
as you presented it, there is no reason to deviate from the age-old
interpretation of "they" as the 3pl pronoun.

[Peter T. Daniels]

RH also thinks RH is being cute. Even he can't be so oblivious to the
affect of his words.

(But can he distinguish affect from effect?)

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 07-08-2021 kl. 04:12 skrev Snidely:
> Kerr-Mudd, John used thar keyboard to writen:
>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:32:11 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 06/08/2021 09:10, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT) "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>>>> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-4, Richard
>>>>>> Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>> Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them
>>>>>>> just because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to
>>>>>>> decide how other people use language.

>[...]
> I think [PTD] was complaining about RH being offensive to women, and you
> [Mudd] think that RH was being cute.

Sorry, but you've lost me: Where do women come into the picture?
In my reading the "narcissists" in RH's posting are the (usually
non-binary) persons who prefer unusual pronouns.

/Anders, Denmark

[Sam Plusnet]

Another example of PTD's 'creative' interpretation of text, when he is
in search of an insult.

[Peter T. Daniels]

Thanks to malicious snippage, the context was lost, namely, the
Women's World Cup.

[Peter T. Daniels]

It's a pity your attention span is so short.

Perhaps unlike you, I do not "search" for insults.

Nor, in fact, is any "insult" quoted above.

Nor did I produce any in the thread.

[Richard Heathfield]

Your reading is of course correct, but this may be because you weren't
actively seeking to read offence into my words.

In my experience, those who seek to be offended generally find what
they're looking for, no matter what they're reading.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 09:32:23 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

My God! The PTD's hypocrisy knows no bounds!

No insults in the thread?

Quotes from the thread:

PTD writes: "Mudd endorses racial bigotry and general offensiveness?
One is not surprised."

PTD writes: "Sorry, but Heathfield for years demonstrated his

ignorance-cum-bigotry and does not get a free pass because he went
away for a while.

PTD writes: Maybe Mudd thinks it's "cute" to pretend to be an

old-style "curmudgeon" and that lets him get away with being offensive
to women, whom he expects to excuse him on the grounds of his extreme
age and lack of "intent to offend."

In a follow-up post, PTD refers to "malicious snippage", but it is PTD
who is snipping maliciously.

[Jerry Friedman]

You don't have to look hard to see offense in "narcissists".

--
Jerry Friedman

[Richard Heathfield]

I was only applying it to those who think they have the right to decide
how other people use language; that is, only to those whom the cap fits

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Does he hold the record in this group for the regular poster with least
self-knowledge?

>
> No insults in the thread?
>
> Quotes from the thread:
>
> PTD writes: "Mudd endorses racial bigotry and general offensiveness?
> One is not surprised."
>
> PTD writes: "Sorry, but Heathfield for years demonstrated his
> ignorance-cum-bigotry and does not get a free pass because he went
> away for a while.
>
> PTD writes: Maybe Mudd thinks it's "cute" to pretend to be an
> old-style "curmudgeon" and that lets him get away with being offensive
> to women, whom he expects to excuse him on the grounds of his extreme
> age and lack of "intent to offend."
>
> In a follow-up post, PTD refers to "malicious snippage", but it is PTD
> who is snipping maliciously.


--

Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 20:31:34 +0200
Athel Cornish-Bowden <acor...@imm.cnrs.fr> wrote:

> On 2021-08-07 17:23:23 +0000, Tony Cooper said:
>

[]

> > My God! The PTD's hypocrisy knows no bounds!
>
> Does he hold the record in this group for the regular poster with least
> self-knowledge?
> >

[]

> > In a follow-up post, PTD refers to "malicious snippage", but it is PTD
> > who is snipping maliciously.
>

He courts cotroversy to then feel "victimised"; it's a classic case.

I'd better KF him again.

[Jerry Friedman]

If someone who didn't know me referred to me on line as "he or she"
(thinking of Jerry Hall, maybe), I'd say "he". I don't think that makes me a
narcissist or says that I think I have the right to decide how other people
use language.

I didn't realize Jerry Hall was married to Rupert Murdoch.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Anders D. Nygaard]

No. The relevant context can be found below.
Nothing about the Women's World Cup in the relevant subthread.

Incidentally, the person performing the "malicious snippage"
was none other than PTD.

/Anders, Denmark.

Den 05-08-2021 kl. 19:26 skrev Sam Plusnet:
> [...]
> Do away with all pronouns and use the full name (and honorifics) for
> everyone on all occasions.
>
> It may be the only viable answer where individuals, who are acting as
> part of a large group, each select their preferred pronouns and expect
> them to be used in written reports of the group's activities.

/Anders, Denmark

[Richard Heathfield]

I'd agree entirely. We appear, in fact, to be in vehement agreement.

[Peter T. Daniels]

????? Stating facts is "insults"???

Naturally you fail to quote any of the statements to which the above
assertions apply.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:16:07 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 07/08/2021 18:44, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> > On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 11:01:35 AM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 07/08/2021 16:25, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
> >>> Den 07-08-2021 kl. 04:12 skrev Snidely:
> >>>> Kerr-Mudd, John used thar keyboard to writen:
> >>>>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:18:48 -0700 (PDT)
> >>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:32:11 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 06/08/2021 09:10, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT) "Peter T. Daniels"
> >>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-4, Richard
> >>>>>>>>> Heathfield wrote:

> >>>>>>>>>> Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them
> >>>>>>>>>> just because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to
> >>>>>>>>>> decide how other people use language.
> >>>> [...]
> >>>> I think [PTD] was complaining about RH being offensive to women, and
> >>>> you [Mudd] think that RH was being cute.
> >>> Sorry, but you've lost me: Where do women come into the picture?

(In case you missed it -- in the posting that initiated the subthread)

> >>> In my reading the "narcissists" in RH's posting are the (usually
> >>> non-binary) persons who prefer unusual pronouns.
> >> Your reading is of course correct, but this may be because you weren't
> >> actively seeking to read offence into my words.
> >> In my experience, those who seek to be offended generally find what
> >> they're looking for, no matter what they're reading.
> > You don't have to look hard to see offense in "narcissists".
>
> I was only applying it to those who think they have the right to decide
> how other people use language; that is, only to those whom the cap fits

Every person has the right to state how they wish to be addressed.

You do not have a right to insult them by deliberately choosing not to do so.

[Peter T. Daniels]

You didn't go far enough back.

> Incidentally, the person performing the "malicious snippage"
> was none other than PTD.

Not at all. When I post a comment, I do not delete what it is
commenting on.

> Den 05-08-2021 kl. 19:26 skrev Sam Plusnet:
> > [...]
> > Do away with all pronouns and use the full name (and honorifics) for
> > everyone on all occasions.
> >
> > It may be the only viable answer where individuals, who are acting as
> > part of a large group, each select their preferred pronouns and expect
> > them to be used in written reports of the group's activities.

The context is within the "[...]" at the top of your quotation.

[Jerry Friedman]

And if my name were Pat or Mackenzie or something else with no gender
indication, I might put "he/him" in my signature. And if I didn't consider
myself male or female, I might put "they/them" or "ey/em/eir" or some
such in my signature. I don't think that would make me a narcissist
either. Still in agreement?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Richard Heathfield]

You have selected and cited *precisely* the text to which I was
replying. You are 100% correct. Do not, however, expect this accuracy to
cut any ice with the apparently ineducable PTD.

[Richard Heathfield]

Yes. But if you were to consider yourself to have the right to exercise
control over what pronouns I use to refer to you, that would be a very
different matter. That is not your decision to make.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 14:09:32 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"

What? Where?

While you may point out (as you are boringly wont to do) that he is
not a citizen of a country that spells out this right in a document,
he certainly has that right.

It may not be right, but he has that right.

As someone who gratuitously insults someone in your daily slew of
posts, you should recognize this.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 07/08/2021 23:44, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 14:09:32 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:16:07 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2021 18:44, Jerry Friedman wrote:

<snip>

>>>> You don't have to look hard to see offense in "narcissists".
>>>
>>> I was only applying it to those who think they have the right to decide
>>> how other people use language; that is, only to those whom the cap fits
>>
>> Every person has the right to state how they wish to be addressed.
>>
>> You do not have a right to insult them by deliberately choosing not to do so.
>
> What? Where?
>
> While you may point out (as you are boringly wont to do) that he is
> not a citizen of a country that spells out this right in a document,
> he certainly has that right.

Indeed I do, and in fact it is enshrined in law: Schedule 1 of the Human
Rights Act 1998:

"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall
include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information
and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of
frontiers."

<snip>

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 01:27:52 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

>On 07/08/2021 23:44, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 14:09:32 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:16:07 PM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>> On 07/08/2021 18:44, Jerry Friedman wrote:
><snip>
>>>>> You don't have to look hard to see offense in "narcissists".
>>>>
>>>> I was only applying it to those who think they have the right to decide
>>>> how other people use language; that is, only to those whom the cap fits
>>>
>>> Every person has the right to state how they wish to be addressed.
>>>
>>> You do not have a right to insult them by deliberately choosing not to do so.
>>
>> What? Where?
>>
>> While you may point out (as you are boringly wont to do) that he is
>> not a citizen of a country that spells out this right in a document,
>> he certainly has that right.
>
>Indeed I do, and in fact it is enshrined in law: Schedule 1 of the Human
>Rights Act 1998:
>
>"Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall
>include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information
>and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of
>frontiers."

Maybe, but it isn't the *right* document. You have to have one like
we do or it doesn't count.

Just ask PTD.

[Jerry Friedman]

What Sam wrote (not entirely seriously, I suspect) was

"Do away with all pronouns and use the full name (and honorifics) for
everyone on all occasions.

"It may be the only viable answer where individuals, who are acting as
part of a large group, each select their preferred pronouns and expect
them to be used in written reports of the group's activities."

So people are selecting and expecting their preferred pronouns. I expect
people to use "he" etc. about me, and I might get a little annoyed if someone
insisted on something else. Is that what you mean by "considering yourself

to have the right to exercise control over what pronouns I use to refer to

you"?

--
Jerry Friedman

[Tony Cooper]

Still, I think you are using the word incorrectly. A narcissist is
one who has an inflated sense of their own self-importance.

Insisting on the use of particular pronouns, or being offended when
others don't respond to that insistance, is not a result of having an
inflated sense of self-importance.

They don't feel they *can* control you, or should be able to control
you, but feel you should control yourself and abide by their wishes.

The true narcissist would not be offended if you don't follow his/her
instructions. That person would simply discount you as not being
worthy of recognition.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 08/08/2021 01:31, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 01:27:52 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>> On 07/08/2021 23:44, Tony Cooper wrote:

<snip>

>>> While you may point out (as you are boringly wont to do) that he is
>>> not a citizen of a country that spells out this right in a document,
>>> he certainly has that right.
>>
>> Indeed I do, and in fact it is enshrined in law: Schedule 1 of the Human
>> Rights Act 1998:
>>
>> "Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall
>> include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information
>> and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of
>> frontiers."
>
> Maybe, but it isn't the *right* document. You have to have one like
> we do or it doesn't count.

Oh well, there's nothing I can do about that.

> Just ask PTD.

I try to make a point of not asking PTD anything, as it is evident that
the exercise is rather a pointless one.

[Richard Heathfield]

I suspect you're right about that.

> was
>
> "Do away with all pronouns and use the full name (and honorifics) for
> everyone on all occasions.
>
> "It may be the only viable answer where individuals, who are acting as
> part of a large group, each select their preferred pronouns and expect
> them to be used in written reports of the group's activities."
>
> So people are selecting and expecting their preferred pronouns.

That's *part* of what people are doing. What concerns me is that people
are increasingly attempting to secure for their expectations the force
of law.

> I expect
> people to use "he" etc. about me, and I might get a little annoyed if someone
> insisted on something else. Is that what you mean by "considering yourself
> to have the right to exercise control over what pronouns I use to refer to
> you"?

I expect people to be bright enough to work out what pronoun to use to
refer to me all by themselves. They shouldn't have to ask me.

[Richard Heathfield]

I think anyone who believes themselves to have the right to decide how
other people use language has an inflated sense of their own importance.

> Insisting on the use of particular pronouns, or being offended when
> others don't respond to that insistance, is not a result of having an
> inflated sense of self-importance.

Yes, it is.

> They don't feel they *can* control you, or should be able to control
> you, but feel you should control yourself and abide by their wishes.

And yet they don't abide by my wishes by using language in the
historically ordinary way and leaving me to choose my own words just as
I leave them to choose theirs. No, sir! That's the fallacy of special
pleading --- thinking that their feelings trump other people's feelings.
They can feel what they like, but they don't get to choose my words.

> The true narcissist would not be offended if you don't follow his/her
> instructions. That person would simply discount you as not being
> worthy of recognition.

This smacks of "no true Scotsman".

[Peter Moylan]

On 08/08/21 14:12, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 19:16:02 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>> On 07/08/2021 18:44, Jerry Friedman wrote:

>>> You don't have to look hard to see offense in "narcissists".
>>
>> I was only applying it to those who think they have the right to
>> decide how other people use language; that is, only to those whom
>> the cap fits
>
> Still, I think you are using the word incorrectly. A narcissist is
> one who has an inflated sense of their own self-importance.

That's one common characteristic, but I don't think it's the defining
characteristic. A narcissist is someone who is unable to feel empathy
for other people, and who will therefore discount other people's points
of view as being unimportant.

I had a narcissist in my life for a long time, but I didn't know that
until a psychiatrist pointed it out. I thought she was a solipsist, who
had no consideration for others because they didn't really exist.

You don't have to be a narcissist to feel entitled to special treatment.
(But it helps.)

--
Peter Moylan Newcastle, NSW http://www.pmoylan.org

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Of course. There is nothing wrong with that. Surely you realize that he
is exempt from the rules he expects everyone else to follow?

>
> /Anders, Denmark.
>
> Den 05-08-2021 kl. 19:26 skrev Sam Plusnet:
> > [...]
> > Do away with all pronouns and use the full name (and honorifics) for
> > everyone on all occasions.
> >
> > It may be the only viable answer where individuals, who are acting as
> > part of a large group, each select their preferred pronouns and expect
> > them to be used in written reports of the group's activities.
>
> /Anders, Denmark

[Mark Brader]

Tony Cooper:

> > Still, I think you are using the word incorrectly. A narcissist is
> > one who has an inflated sense of their own self-importance.

Peter Moylan:

> That's one common characteristic, but I don't think it's the defining
> characteristic. A narcissist is someone who is unable to feel empathy
> for other people, and who will therefore discount other people's points
> of view as being unimportant.

As I recall, when Donald Trump was elected and we were discussing whether
he was better described as a psychopath or a sociopath or whether the two
words were equivalent, "someone who is unable to feel empathy for other
people" was the definition given for one or both. I don't think
"narcissist" is as strong a word; I'd say Tony is closer to correct.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "There is no Planet B."
m...@vex.net -- Emmanuel Macron

My text in this article is in the public domain.

[Snidely]

Richard Heathfield was thinking very hard :

Are you sure YOU aren't the narcissist?

/dps

--
Who, me? And what lacuna?

[Richard Heathfield]

It's a fair point, and I have posed the question to myself already while
composing responses in this thread, in the form of asking myself whether
I too am committing the fallacy of soecial pleading. I think not,
however. I'm not the one seeking the right to decide what other people
may and may not say. I am simply defending a right that we all already
have, i.e. to say what we bloody well like.

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 07:24:37 +0100, Richard Heathfield
<r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:


>> Still, I think you are using the word incorrectly. A narcissist is
>> one who has an inflated sense of their own self-importance.
>
>I think anyone who believes themselves to have the right to decide how
>other people use language has an inflated sense of their own importance.

That casts a wide net. It includes everyone from school teachers to
editors to followers of this newsgroup.

>
>> Insisting on the use of particular pronouns, or being offended when
>> others don't respond to that insistance, is not a result of having an
>> inflated sense of self-importance.
>
>Yes, it is.

Quite an effective "rebuttal". Well thought out and argued.

[Richard Heathfield]

On 08/08/2021 13:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 07:24:37 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:
>
>
>>> Still, I think you are using the word incorrectly. A narcissist is
>>> one who has an inflated sense of their own self-importance.
>>
>> I think anyone who believes themselves to have the right to decide how
>> other people use language has an inflated sense of their own importance.
>
> That casts a wide net. It includes everyone from school teachers to
> editors to followers of this newsgroup.

No teacher ever decided how I use language. One tried once, when I was 7
years old, by requiring me to spell "collier" with a single 'l'. (I
refused to conform, and won after an incandescent teacher yielded to
dictionary evidence for my case. I stll spell the word with two 'l's to
this day.)

I do not concede that "teaching how" and "deciding how" are the same. If
they were, we'd all have received 100% on every test.

Yes, I have been censored by editors (on grounds of length). I make no
comment on whether this constitutes self-importance or simply a
commercial decision.

No doubt some followers of this newsgroup would like to dictate other
people's language use, but we have already covered this ground.

>>> Insisting on the use of particular pronouns, or being offended when
>>> others don't respond to that insistance, is not a result of having an
>>> inflated sense of self-importance.
>>
>> Yes, it is.
>
> Quite an effective "rebuttal". Well thought out and argued.

Yes, I thought so. Put it this way; my response is exactly as closely
reasoned as the statement to which it was replying.

[Jerry Friedman]

...

OK. That hadn't been previously mentioned in the thread, so I didn't realize
your "narcissists" were only people trying to get such laws passed.

--
Jerry Friedman

[Peter T. Daniels]

And not so long ago, you would have signed "(Mr.) Pat Mackenzie."

[Peter T. Daniels]

He did not, however, select and cite the text to which _I_ was replying.
Nice try, but no dice.

[Janet]

In article <3f67a236-12df-4d81...@googlegroups.com>,
gram...@verizon.net says...

> Every person has the right to state how they wish to be addressed.
>
> You do not have a right to insult them by deliberately choosing not to do so.

Stating how they wish to be addressed, does NOT convey any right to
that form of address. Or any obligations on those who object

Royal Nonesuch springs to mind.

His Royal Majesty King Janet.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 2:01:31 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 08/08/2021 01:31, Tony Cooper wrote:

> > Just ask PTD.
>
> I try to make a point of not asking PTD anything, as it is evident that
> the exercise is rather a pointless one.

Try it some time, and you will be disabused of that misconception.

Incidentally, TC was being sarcastic, and you failed to notice that.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 2:12:33 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 08/08/2021 01:42, Jerry Friedman wrote:

> > So people are selecting and expecting their preferred pronouns.
>
> That's *part* of what people are doing. What concerns me is that people
> are increasingly attempting to secure for their expectations the force
> of law.

Don you have a shred of evidence to support that claim?

> > I expect
> > people to use "he" etc. about me, and I might get a little annoyed if someone
> > insisted on something else. Is that what you mean by "considering yourself
> > to have the right to exercise control over what pronouns I use to refer to
> > you"?
>
> I expect people to be bright enough to work out what pronoun to use to
> refer to me all by themselves. They shouldn't have to ask me.

You really are naive. How are they supposed to "work out" the question,
if you are, for instance, transgender or nonbinary?

[Tony Cooper]

On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 09:06:14 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
<gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 2:12:33 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>> On 08/08/2021 01:42, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>
>> > So people are selecting and expecting their preferred pronouns.
>>
>> That's *part* of what people are doing. What concerns me is that people
>> are increasingly attempting to secure for their expectations the force
>> of law.
>
>Don you have a shred of evidence to support that claim?

You are naive if you don't see evidence of that. Look no further than
this:

https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page

and read the first bullet point.

And in your state:
https://nj.gov/education/students/safety/sandp/transgender/Guidance.pdf

which includes pronouns under "Gender Identity" as being covered by
the NJLAD.

I am not unsympathic to the intent of the laws, but to not recognize
that there is an increasing attempt to bring the use of preferred
pronouns under law is ignorant.

>
>> > I expect
>> > people to use "he" etc. about me, and I might get a little annoyed if someone
>> > insisted on something else. Is that what you mean by "considering yourself
>> > to have the right to exercise control over what pronouns I use to refer to
>> > you"?
>>
>> I expect people to be bright enough to work out what pronoun to use to
>> refer to me all by themselves. They shouldn't have to ask me.
>
>You really are naive. How are they supposed to "work out" the question,
>if you are, for instance, transgender or nonbinary?

[Richard Heathfield]

Although I didn't spell it out in so many words, I implied it in my
first reply in this thread:

"Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them
just because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to
decide how other people use language."

in the phrase "think they have the right to decide". Their influence is
already permeating Parliament, and they well may gain that right,
spelling a beginning to the end of free speech in the UK. I think I am
right in saying that this process has already begun in Canada.

[Rich Ulrich]

On Sun, 08 Aug 2021 03:05:07 -0500, m...@vex.net (Mark Brader) wrote:

>Tony Cooper:
>> > Still, I think you are using the word incorrectly. A narcissist is
>> > one who has an inflated sense of their own self-importance.
>
>Peter Moylan:
>> That's one common characteristic, but I don't think it's the defining
>> characteristic. A narcissist is someone who is unable to feel empathy
>> for other people, and who will therefore discount other people's points
>> of view as being unimportant.
>
>As I recall, when Donald Trump was elected and we were discussing whether
>he was better described as a psychopath or a sociopath or whether the two
>words were equivalent, "someone who is unable to feel empathy for other
>people" was the definition given for one or both. I don't think
>"narcissist" is as strong a word; I'd say Tony is closer to correct.

Narcissism as a common adjective is far less severe than what exists
that justifies the clinical diagnosis.

I took Trump's reported narcissism with a grain of salt until he
invited the cameras in, after a cabinet meeting, to record each of
his cabinet advisers larding him with exaggerated praise. Wow!

I had once seen such behavior modeled in an animated cartoon
(Heckel and Jeckyl, IIRC) and I had assumed that it was an
overstatement of what ever happened in real life.

Clinical narcissism, as I now understand it, sort of starts out
with sociopathy and extends to delusions and abandonment
of logic and social standards. Trump earns the diagnosis.
He says things (a) that are outrageous; and (b) which do not
prepare us for the next outrage. Sociopaths and psychopaths
are more ordinary than narcissists.

As some people put it, he seems to live in an alternate world,
an alternate reality. He lies incessantly by the standard of
"saying things that are not true." How much does he lie by
the standard of "saying things he does not believe"? I try
not to judge that.

--
Rich Ulrich

[occam]

On 05/08/2021 00:21, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Wed, 4 Aug 2021 14:12:54 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> On Wednesday, August 4, 2021 at 12:51:06 PM UTC-4, Quinn C wrote:
>>
>>> Here's a totally random example of a page that uses singular they
>>> naturally:
>>>
>>> <https://olympic.ca/team-canada/quinn/>
>>>
>>> | Quinn made their Olympic debut at Rio 2016 where they helped Canada
>>> | win the bronze medal. They competed at their first FIFA Women’s World
>>> | Cup in 2019. [...]
>>
>> I assume "Quinn" is some sort of collective. As in "NSYNC made their
>> Carnegie Hall debut at a misguided attempt to outscream the 1964
>> Beatles audience."
>
>
> I take it you did not read the article. This "Quinn" is a 25 year-old
> player from Toronto.
>
> It is not this Quinn:
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=klWzVuxdygg
>
>
Nor is it this one:

https://owlcroft.com/aue/aposter.php?id=Quinn%20C

[Anders D. Nygaard]

Den 07-08-2021 kl. 23:13 skrev Peter T. Daniels:

> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 4:12:37 PM UTC-4, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
>> Den 07-08-2021 kl. 18:30 skrev Peter T. Daniels:

>>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 11:25:30 AM UTC-4, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
>>>> Den 07-08-2021 kl. 04:12 skrev Snidely:
>>>>> Kerr-Mudd, John used thar keyboard to writen:
>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:18:48 -0700 (PDT)

>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:

>>>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:32:11 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2021 09:10, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT) "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-4, Richard
>>>>>>>>>> Heathfield wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them
>>>>>>>>>>> just because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to
>>>>>>>>>>> decide how other people use language.
>>>>> [...]
>>>>> I think [PTD] was complaining about RH being offensive to women, and you
>>>>> [Mudd] think that RH was being cute.
>>>> Sorry, but you've lost me: Where do women come into the picture?
>>>> In my reading the "narcissists" in RH's posting are the (usually
>>>> non-binary) persons who prefer unusual pronouns.

>>> Thanks to malicious snippage, the context was lost, namely, the
>>> Women's World Cup.
>>
>> No. The relevant context can be found below.

>> Nothing about the Women's World Cup in the relevant subthread.
>
> You didn't go far enough back.

If you had not snipped, I would not have had to go back.

>> Incidentally, the person performing the "malicious snippage"
>> was none other than PTD.
>

> Not at all. When I post a comment, I do not delete what it is
> commenting on.

But you do snip relevant context.

>> Den 05-08-2021 kl. 19:26 skrev Sam Plusnet:

>>> [...]

>>> Do away with all pronouns and use the full name (and honorifics) for
>>> everyone on all occasions.
>>>
>>> It may be the only viable answer where individuals, who are acting as
>>> part of a large group, each select their preferred pronouns and expect
>>> them to be used in written reports of the group's activities.
>

> The context is within the "[...]" at the top of your quotation.

If you felt it was relevant to your comment, you could have left it in.

/Anders, Denmark

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 9:00:34 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 08/08/2021 13:30, Tony Cooper wrote:
> > On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 07:24:37 +0100, Richard Heathfield
> > <r...@cpax.org.uk> wrote:

> >>> Still, I think you are using the word incorrectly. A narcissist is
> >>> one who has an inflated sense of their own self-importance.
> >> I think anyone who believes themselves to have the right to decide how
> >> other people use language has an inflated sense of their own importance.
> > That casts a wide net. It includes everyone from school teachers to
> > editors to followers of this newsgroup.
>
> No teacher ever decided how I use language. One tried once, when I was 7

You didn't say "decides." You said "believes themselves to have the right to
decide." If that's how carefully you read -- read what you yourself write --
it's no wonder you are alienating just about everyone here.

[Peter T. Daniels]

On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 12:44:42 PM UTC-4, Tony Cooper wrote:
> On Sun, 8 Aug 2021 09:06:14 -0700 (PDT), "Peter T. Daniels"
> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >On Sunday, August 8, 2021 at 2:12:33 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> >> On 08/08/2021 01:42, Jerry Friedman wrote:
> >
> >> > So people are selecting and expecting their preferred pronouns.
> >>
> >> That's *part* of what people are doing. What concerns me is that people
> >> are increasingly attempting to secure for their expectations the force
> >> of law.
> >
> >Don you have a shred of evidence to support that claim?
> You are naive if you don't see evidence of that. Look no further than
> this:
>
> https://www1.nyc.gov/site/cchr/law/legal-guidances-gender-identity-expression.page
>
> and read the first bullet point.

I don't know what "the first bullet point" is, but this is what they're
talking about:

"Examples of Violations
"a. Intentional or repeated refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title. For example, repeatedly calling a transgender woman “him” or “Mr.” after she has made clear that she uses she/her and Ms.

"b. Refusal to use a person’s name, pronouns, or title because they do not conform to gender stereotypes. For example, insisting on calling a non-binary person “Mr.” after they have requested to be called “Mx.” [and a couple about demanding medical or legal evidence]

There are no penalties for single violations; there are no minimum
penalties at all; and all this apples ONLY in the usual civil rights
contexts: employment, housing, public accommodations. Certainly
nothing in the areas Heathfield is panicking about. He remains free
to behave like an arsehole toward those to whom he feels himself
superior.

> And in your state:
> https://nj.gov/education/students/safety/sandp/transgender/Guidance.pdf
>
> which includes pronouns under "Gender Identity" as being covered by
> the NJLAD.

It says "students may prefer" their own pronouns. Nothing about what
Heathfield claimed.

You're even worse at reading than he is.

> I am not unsympathic to the intent of the laws, but to not recognize
> that there is an increasing attempt to bring the use of preferred
> pronouns under law is ignorant.

I noted yesterday(?) that NYS will be using certain nondiscriminatory
terminology in its publications (including legal codes) henceforth.

> >> > I expect
> >> > people to use "he" etc. about me, and I might get a little annoyed if someone
> >> > insisted on something else. Is that what you mean by "considering yourself
> >> > to have the right to exercise control over what pronouns I use to refer to
> >> > you"?
> >> I expect people to be bright enough to work out what pronoun to use to
> >> refer to me all by themselves. They shouldn't have to ask me.
> >You really are naive. How are they supposed to "work out" the question,
> >if you are, for instance, transgender or nonbinary?

Where's the clever or dismissive reply to this concern?

[Mark Brader]

Mark Brader:

>> As I recall, when Donald Trump was elected and we were discussing whether
>> he was better described as a psychopath or a sociopath or whether the two
>> words were equivalent, "someone who is unable to feel empathy for other
>> people" was the definition given for one or both. I don't think

>> "narcissist" is as strong a word...

Rich Ulrich:

> Narcissism as a common adjective is far less severe than what exists
> that justifies the clinical diagnosis.

...

> Clinical narcissism, as I now understand it, sort of starts out

> with sociopathy and extends...

In that case, the clinicians need to find a better word for it.
--
Mark Brader, Toronto "Why do they do that?"
m...@vex.net "Because they can."

[Sam Plusnet]

On 08-Aug-21 7:01, Richard Heathfield wrote:
> On 08/08/2021 01:31, Tony Cooper wrote:

>> Maybe, but it isn't the *right* document.  You have to have one like
>> we do or it doesn't count.
>
> Oh well, there's nothing I can do about that.
>
>> Just ask PTD.
>
> I try to make a point of not asking PTD anything, as it is evident that
> the exercise is rather a pointless one.
>

Not even
"What were you smoking/drinking when you came up with _that_ idea?"

--
Sam Plusnet
Wales, UK

[Snidely]

Mark Brader explained :

> Mark Brader:
>>> As I recall, when Donald Trump was elected and we were discussing whether
>>> he was better described as a psychopath or a sociopath or whether the two
>>> words were equivalent, "someone who is unable to feel empathy for other
>>> people" was the definition given for one or both. I don't think
>>> "narcissist" is as strong a word...
>
> Rich Ulrich:
>> Narcissism as a common adjective is far less severe than what exists
>> that justifies the clinical diagnosis. ...
>> Clinical narcissism, as I now understand it, sort of starts out
>> with sociopathy and extends...
>
> In that case, the clinicians need to find a better word for it.

They can work that out, I'm sure. They have the potential.

/dps


--
Trust, but verify.

[Peter Moylan]

On 09/08/21 04:15, Rich Ulrich wrote:

> Clinical narcissism, as I now understand it, sort of starts out with
> sociopathy and extends to delusions and abandonment of logic and
> social standards. Trump earns the diagnosis. He says things (a) that
> are outrageous; and (b) which do not prepare us for the next outrage.
> Sociopaths and psychopaths are more ordinary than narcissists.
>
> As some people put it, he seems to live in an alternate world, an
> alternate reality. He lies incessantly by the standard of "saying
> things that are not true." How much does he lie by the standard of
> "saying things he does not believe"? I try not to judge that.

Certain people have the ability to assert something that isn't true, and
simultaneously to convince themselves that their version is the truth.
(This often happens in the subcategory we call "revising history".) In
their minds, they are not lying, no matter how outrageous the lie. I
have often suspected that that is the case for Trump.

[Peter Moylan]

On 08/08/21 19:05, Mark Brader wrote:
> Tony Cooper:
>>> Still, I think you are using the word incorrectly. A narcissist
>>> is one who has an inflated sense of their own self-importance.
>
> Peter Moylan:
>> That's one common characteristic, but I don't think it's the
>> defining characteristic. A narcissist is someone who is unable to
>> feel empathy for other people, and who will therefore discount
>> other people's points of view as being unimportant.
>
> As I recall, when Donald Trump was elected and we were discussing
> whether he was better described as a psychopath or a sociopath or
> whether the two words were equivalent, "someone who is unable to feel
> empathy for other people" was the definition given for one or both.
> I don't think "narcissist" is as strong a word; I'd say Tony is
> closer to correct.

Psychopathy and sociopathy are broad categories, not precise diagnoses.
Narcissism is a subset of psychopathy.

[Rich Ulrich]

That is exactly what challenges my attempts at analysis:
"In their minds, they are not lying, ...."

I now hypothesize that, unlike normal people, the narcissists
do not have the categories for True and Untrue. "Lying" does
not apply to them as an internal standard. Instead, they weigh
the value of "Do I feel better in saying this?"


How can T**** say, on election eve, somethng like,
"I'm ahead in a huge number of states. We should stop
counting now, and I win by a landslide."

Alternate reality?

Or, in the instance of his first impeachment, he offers that
he is not guilty because he (carefully, a perfect call) never
made the threat 100% explicit, "Do this, or ELSE" on a
recorded call. His own lawyer and crony, Guiliani, was the
crusading DA who put NY City Mafia in jail in the 1980s by using
informants, despite their care on phones.


--
Rich Ulrich

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-08-07, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> On 07/08/2021 22:36, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 2:13:10 PM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>> On 07/08/2021 20:47, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 12:16:07 PM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:
>>>>> On 07/08/2021 18:44, Jerry Friedman wrote:
>>>>>> On Saturday, August 7, 2021 at 11:01:35 AM UTC-6, Richard Heathfield wrote:

>>>>>>> On 07/08/2021 16:25, Anders D. Nygaard wrote:
>>>>>>>> Den 07-08-2021 kl. 04:12 skrev Snidely:
>>>>>>>>> Kerr-Mudd, John used thar keyboard to writen:
>>>>>>>>>> On Fri, 6 Aug 2021 05:18:48 -0700 (PDT)

>>>>>>>>>> "Peter T. Daniels" <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>>> On Friday, August 6, 2021 at 4:32:11 AM UTC-4, Richard Heathfield

>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 06/08/2021 09:10, Kerr-Mudd, John wrote:

>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 12:00:37 -0700 (PDT) "Peter T. Daniels"
>>>>>>>>>>>>> <gram...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Thursday, August 5, 2021 at 2:02:16 PM UTC-4, Richard
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Heathfield wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Pronouns serve a purpose. I have no intention of abandoning them
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> just because a bunch of narcissists think they have the right to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> decide how other people use language.
>>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>> I think [PTD] was complaining about RH being offensive to women, and
>>>>>>>>> you [Mudd] think that RH was being cute.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, but you've lost me: Where do women come into the picture?
>>>>>>>> In my reading the "narcissists" in RH's posting are the (usually
>>>>>>>> non-binary) persons who prefer unusual pronouns.
>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Your reading is of course correct, but this may be because you weren't
>>>>>>> actively seeking to read offence into my words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In my experience, those who seek to be offended generally find what
>>>>>>> they're looking for, no matter what they're reading.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You don't have to look hard to see offense in "narcissists".
>>>>
>>>>> I was only applying it to those who think they have the right to decide
>>>>> how other people use language; that is, only to those whom the cap fits
>>>>
>>>> If someone who didn't know me referred to me on line as "he or she"
>>>> (thinking of Jerry Hall, maybe), I'd say "he". I don't think that makes me a
>>>> narcissist or says that I think I have the right to decide how other people
>>>> use language.
>>
>>> I'd agree entirely. We appear, in fact, to be in vehement agreement.
>>
>> And if my name were Pat or Mackenzie or something else with no gender
>> indication, I might put "he/him" in my signature. And if I didn't consider
>> myself male or female, I might put "they/them" or "ey/em/eir" or some
>> such in my signature. I don't think that would make me a narcissist
>> either. Still in agreement?
>
> Yes. But if you were to consider yourself to have the right to exercise
> control over what pronouns I use to refer to you, that would be a very
> different matter. That is not your decision to make.

Why is it any more narcissistic than "exercising control" over the use
of nicknames ("you can call me 'Tom' but not 'Tommy'") or ethnic
descriptions ("I don't like being described as 'coloured'")?


--
Indentation is for enemy skulls, not code!
---Klingon Programmer's Guide

[Richard Heathfield]

I have no objection to people making the patently false claim "these are
my pronouns"; that's freedom of speech, even though it's a lie or at
best mistaken. What I object to is some people's effort to make it
compulsory for me to share their delusion about their `right' to be
referred to by their made-up pronouns, a compulsion that is not only an
incursion on freedom of speech but also a step towards compelled speech.

[Adam Funk]

On 2021-08-08, Richard Heathfield wrote:

> On 08/08/2021 04:12, Tony Cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 7 Aug 2021 19:16:02 +0100, Richard Heathfield

>> Still, I think you are using the word incorrectly. A narcissist is
>> one who has an inflated sense of their own self-importance.
>

> I think anyone who believes themselves to have the right to decide how
> other people use language has an inflated sense of their own importance.

What if someone persisted in calling you "Ricky" (which is a valid
nickname for "Richard")? Would it be narcissistic of you to insist on
not being called that?


--
Outside of the city limits the heart of darkness, the true wasteland
begins. --Ignatius J Reillly