[INDOLOGY] [Indology] Rules of the game

[Arnaud Fournet]

Nie mówię po polsku, ale translate.google może pomóc.

Wygląda na to, że uważasz, że Reductio ad Nazismus jest do przyjęcia,
Nie zgadzam się i wydaje się, że nie chcesz zrozumieć.

Wygląda na to, że nie ma kompromisu między naszymi dwoma punktami widzenia.


Le 22/10/2018 à 06:55, Artur Karp a écrit :
> Wielce Szanowny Panie Arnoldzie (Arnaudzie does not sound properly 
> Polish),
>
> Należę - zgodnie z Pańskim określeniem - do 'liściarzy' , czy 
> 'listowników' (listees) i dlatego pozwalam sobie na uwagę w języku, w 
> którym ma sens stare powiedzenie:
>
> <<robić z igły widły>>
>
> As far as I am concerned this exchange of arguments re ad Hitlerum and 
> contra-ad Hitlerum is more than a bit dull. Quite boring, frankly 
> speaking. Threatening to become endless - and, finally, empty.
>
> Robi Pan z igły widły.
>
> There are much more important topics that need be laid on the 
> indological discussion table - such as the introduction of iron 
> forging technologies and its consequences in the sphere of cultural 
> politics. Or - such as the origins of untouchability.
>
> Regards from suddenly coldish Warsaw -
>
> Artur Karp (ret.)
> Chair of South Asian Studies
> University of Warsaw
> Poland
>
> 2018-10-21 22:58 GMT+02:00 Arnaud Fournet via INDOLOGY 
> <indology at list.indology.info <mailto:indology at list.indology.info>>:
>
>     To all listees,
>     and especially,
>     to the team who owns the site and forum,
>
>     I think the current debate and issue is essential,
>     and here's why:
>
>     @ you wrote :
>     Dear Dr Fournet,
>     You have every right to feel fed up with the tendencies you list.  You have
>     the right to be offended.  But you do not have the right to express your
>     feelings of annoyance in impolite terms in the INDOLOGY forum.
>
>     well, Let's summarize the whole thing:
>
>     so I have the right to whatever, how nice!! how sweet sounding!!
>     but, concretely, the Hell cares,
>     so no matter how much s*t and m*k the sprinkling system sprinkles in my face, I just have to s*t up.
>     Because it's all about the rules (your rules).
>
>     So let's put it otherwise:
>
>     Pt1. you call it "Net-Etiquette"
>     Well, as a trueborn Frenchman, I really wonder why your rules bear a French-looking name "Etiquette".
>     I'm not far from thinking this is one more piece of abuse added to all the rest spit and spat in my face.
>     My piece of advice => find a non-French word for your rules. Thanks.
>     In all cases the French word "etiquette" has nothing to do with your rules, in nomine or in spiritu.
>
>     Pt2. You object to my phrase "s*t and m*k sprinkling system",
>     but apparently you don't object to other people's Reductio ad Nazismus.
>     I guess we really have a problem here, possibly of cultural or philosophical nature.
>
>     You seem to focus more on superficial features than on contents. It's possible that here, we have a deep cultural difference.
>     As a trueborn Frenchman, I tend to focus more on contents than on formalistic issues.
>     Among other things, that's why in rugby I believe that a SOB's kick in the testicles should be disapproved of, even if it's done Englishways à la gentleman.
>     Of course, the Rugby International board thinks otherwise. If it looks à la gentleman, then it's ok.
>     SOB's tricks are ok, if they respect surface "Etiquette". Well, I definitely disagree.
>     Contents matters more than form, in my world.
>
>     PT3. basically your "Etiquette", whatever that twisted pseudo-French word means, rejects my straightforward description but accepts Reductio ad Nazismus.
>     So let me reword what Koenrad Elst's "work" is about:
>     Basically, it's a Troyan horse: it looks like a pseudo-historiographical discourse, but the core of the beast is to sprinkle s*t and m*k on Indo-European Studies.
>
>     So, concretely, your "Etiquette", whatever that twisted pseudo-French word means,
>     1. does not promotes (academic) courtesy, it promotes hypocrisy and oblique abusive perversion,
>     2. puts historiography at risk of becoming the playground for hypocritical "s*t and m*k sprinkling systems".
>
>     I definitely believe that the historiography of sciences, and of linguistics in particular, deserves more than becoming the playground where a number of bastards can freely have fun with their "s*t and m*k sprinkling systems".
>
>     As a matter of fact, in France, we have one indigenous exemplar of a "s*t and m*k sprinkling system", namely Jean-François Demoule, an archeologist who writes books on linguistics where he drools at heavy length on how much linguists are half-incompetent, half-nazi, etc.
>     As far as you are concerned, his "work" probably passes the test of your "Etiquette",
>     but as far as I am concerned, this individual only deserves the worst.
>
>     In all cases, I will not change my mind.
>
>     And I am ready to be banned,
>     because I prefer banning to dishonor.
>
>     And, as a last word, change your "Etiquette" for a word that makes sense.
>
>     Arnaud Fournet
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     INDOLOGY mailing list
>     INDOLOGY at list.indology.info <mailto:INDOLOGY at list.indology.info>
>     indology-owner at list.indology.info
>     <mailto:indology-owner at list.indology.info> (messages to the list's
>     managing committee)
>     http://listinfo.indology.info (where you can change your list
>     options or unsubscribe)
>
>



-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://list.indology.info/pipermail/indology/attachments/20181022/4d82bca9/attachment.htm>