Re: When the reader enters the digital space for writing, he participates in the unending ballet between characters and glyphs

On 12/23/2012 09:56 AM, Jukka K. Korpela wrote:
> 2012-12-23 18:09, Karl Williamson wrote:
>
>> As another poster said, this quotation
>> would be considered fair use under USA law.
>
> It was not a quotation but an excerpt posted without permission.
> Quotations are allowed when they are needed to back up your statements
> or specify what you are commenting on. There was nothing like that in
> the posting (nothing that the poster himself had written), and such
> behavior should be discouraged.

I completely disagree. I see nothing wrong with his post. Again, this
may be a cultural difference between us.

>
>> The post uses only US-ASCII.
>
> When posting something taken literally from a printed source, the source
> should be reproduced as exactly as possible. It is surely reasonably to
> expect that readers of the Unicode list can deal with Unicode encoded
> email, even though email might not be completely Unicode safe in general.

Again, I disagree. I believe this list is for people who are interested
in Unicode, at whatever level of expertise and skill they may be at. If
I were a newbie, and got your response to my first post I ever made
here, I would probably unsubscribe from the list, with a bitter taste in
my mouth about Unicode. This list should not be about driving people
away from Unicode.
>
>> I do not believe that either the EM dash nor the miscapitalization of a
>> word constitute "distorting the text", and I find it difficult to
>> believe that Jukka really does either.
>
> I do. Playing with scientific names of organisms without knowing their
> writing rules is a common sign of bogosity, comparable to using names
> that look like Unicode names of characters (instead of common names) but
> aren’t correctly written.

And it could have been a simple typographical error.

I have been studying Biology at the local University, and if I made such
an error, the professors might have gently pointed it out, but it would
not be taken as an indication that I didn't know anything.
>
>> Therefore I believe that Jukka
>> was not being honest in his response to the post;
>
> You accused me of bullying, and now you are saying that I was dishonest.

I did no such thing. I said I *perceived* your post to be bullying,
and that I *believed* you were being dishonest based on some deductions,
and I said I could be wrong, citing one example of a way I could be
wrong. Don't distort my text. There is a huge difference in saying
something *is* something versus being clear that this is *my perception*
of how something is. I do not know nor did I claim to know what is in
your mind and heart; only how it came across to me, which I found offensive.
Received on Sun Dec 23 2012 - 12:09:16 CST