Re: [Terminology] Terminology draft revised

[Lloyd W <[e-mail]>]

> On 30 Oct 2021, at 07:38, Mirja Kuehlewind <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> Dan, I don’t think anybody called you a racist or a Nazi. However, I have to say I strongly disagree with your views and find this discussion rather worrying.

Well, yes.

Whenever I want to make a point (a well-researched, literate point, say, across a couple of drafts) about my concerns about overreach in attempting to control and manipulate language for political goals and where it all could lead, up pops Dan 'I'm not a racist because I have Irish ancestry, and they were slaves too!' Harkins, to complain yet again about how his drafts that he didn't even have the courage to put his name to, or to admit were his when he started defending them, were summarily misunderstood, condemned, rejected, and generally abhorred.

Dr Cath-Speth's 'loud men talking loudly' observations could be expanded to include a special section on Harkins as an outlier in discourse, and the sense of entitlement he exemplifies.

But none of this imo makes the knodel terminology draft -- the original pre-Harkins subject of this thread -- well-written, well-argued, well researched, well referenced, or even at its core a good idea. Because it's imo not.

L.

http://lloydwood.users.sourceforge.net/Personal/L.Wood/publications/internet-drafts/draft-wood-term-modest-proposal/