At 19:54 27-10-2002 +0530, Ritu Ko wrote:
Americans appear to be a lot quicker to call something a "threat" than Europeans (at least, if some Americans on this list are any indication). What an European would still consider a friendly warning or good advice, Americans would interpret as a threat.> Oh, now I get it! How stupid of me to forget -- as an American, you are > of course using the *American* definition of "threat"! (Which, as we > all know, includes a hell of a lot more than the European definition.)I don't know the difference between the American and the European definitions of 'threat'. Could you kindly enlighten me?
An example from Brin-L's past. A little over a year ago, a certain US poster (no, not JDG this time) made some rather nasty accusations against me (which he could not prove). I pointed out to him: "If you start making a habit of accusing people of something without providing evidence, sooner or later you're going to find yourself in court, explaining your behaviour to a judge.". Now, an European would consider that a general warning. Said poster however considered this a direct threat against him, and interpreted it as "if you accuse me of something one more time, I will sue you for every penny you got".
Because if you (plural) do not convince him that his behaviour is in dire need of improvement, you (plural) will have to put up with his arrogance and his personal attacks (among other things) over and over again.> If you do not want all this to happen again in the future, then you > will have to convince the person causing it in the first place > (Giorgis) to start behaving in such a way that "all this" will not > happen again. I don't understand. Why should anyone *have* to convince JDG of anything?
Jeroen "The only good Giorgis is a silent Giorgis" van Baardwijk
__________________________________________________________________________
Wonderful-World-of-Brin-L Website: http://www.Brin-L.com
_______________________________________________
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
