[governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD

Tue Feb 23 02:00:24 EST 2010

Certainly something that is "incomprehesible" would not be sophisticated. And language should be used in a way as to be understood by the intended recipient.
And if all we were talking about was the language that was used we would not be talking.
But some thoughts and concepts are more sophisticated than others. I most assuredly am using sophisticated here in the sense of complex and multidisciplined. Not as any measure of "place in society".

Some technical jargon used in sociology is  difficult to understand for "most" people. Some telecommunications engineering jargon is difficult for "most" people --- regardless of mother language. Constitutional and inherint rights are not simple concepts. 

So now for folks to say "keep it simple stupid" when dealing with the above we have a problem. One does not use futbal jargon to make cogent statements regarding inalienable rights - maybe metaphors as Jesus used them,, but not as a replacement for highly complicated words describing highly complicated issues. It is rude for me to expect highly trained computer engineering doctorates to bring themselve down to my level when discussing technical addressing protocal issues. Likewise if they do not grasp nomanklatura and propaganda and marketing and subliminal social messaging I should not have to speak at their level,,,,, but alas if they are my target audience I will in order to persuade them or educate them.

My main point is that we should not turn our backs on complicated ideas simply because some will not understand the complicated language that is used to discuss them.

--- On Mon, 2/22/10, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Sivasubramanian Muthusamy <isolatedn at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Date: Monday, February 22, 2010, 11:51 AM

Hello Erid Dierker

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 1:59 AM, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

I think we agree on this. I think we can both agree that writing in a style most easily undersood by all is optimum. Where we differ here, and not so much, is that when speaking to somebody we make sure that all listeners are easily accomodated.  That probably is not such a good idea. If the paper be for all to learn from,,, then write it one way. But if the paper be written so that a leader is pursuaded or influenced then write it for that reader/leader and that purpose.

If we are attempting to garner broad support for our position your technique and considerations would be at forefront.  In that our stated purpose is more focused on the Sec Gen then perhaps my thoughts should overshadow inclusiveness.  If it be your scenario then we are "grandstanding" and "playing for the crowds".

I am a bit puzzled about what you said  earlier, 

"If the document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the language be of intelligence and sophistication"

I don't agree that proper respect  requires a language of "sophistication" (sophistication in the sense that the language is complex, incomprehensible to most of the CS participants). The language can be respectful while being simple. It would be a stereotype to assume that polite and formal communication ought to be 'sophisticated', (constructed in long sentences of relatively unintelligible words?). It can very much be a communication in short sentences and plain simple words and still radiate respect.

Another perceived problem is that of the difficulty for those who don't speak English. Since it is a very important document from IGC, we can internally translate this one page document in a few other languages within a week after sending this document in English and make it available on the list for reference as also send it the to the UN to be included along with the document in English in their records.

Sivasubramanian Muthusamy.

I think better we do not say one thing and act another.

--- On Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD
To: "Eric Dierker" <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net>
Cc: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" <fm-lists at st-kilda.org>
Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 5:28 PM

We need to agree to differ.
I cannot accept an argument that measures greatest and least on the basis of whether people speak English or not. And I believe in communication courtesy – an obligation on the speaker to make his/her point as clearly as possible concomitant with an obligation on the listener to make the effort necessary to understand. 

On 21 February 2010 11:52, Eric Dierker <cogitoergosum at sbcglobal.net> wrote:

In all aspects of communication respect is a two way street. If the document is being drafted for the eyes of a very sophisticated person of high intelligence and education then proper respect requires that the language be of intelligence and sophistication.

Too often in civil societies we are concerned about the least amoung us and are not likewise concerned of the greatest amoung us. It is of no help to lower standards so that those of lower standards are included. It is far better to set sights on raising the bar for all rather than lowering it to be seen politically correct.

--- On Sun, 2/21/10, Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> wrote:

From: Deirdre Williams <williams.deirdre at gmail.com> 

Subject: Re: [governance] REVISION 4 Draft statement to UNSG on bypassing CSTD
To: governance at lists.cpsr.org, "Fearghas McKay" <fm-lists at st-kilda.org>
Date: Sunday, February 21, 2010, 2:06 PM 

My point too. If we expect others to respect the diversity of languages used by civil society and generally online, then we need to be seen to be offering that respect ourselves. 
And I expect we would also like to be clearly understood by everyone, no matter which language they may feel comfortable in.
Deirdre

On 21 February 2010 09:22, Fearghas McKay <fm-lists at st-kilda.org> wrote:

On 19 Feb 2010, at 13:56, Sivasubramanian Muthusamy wrote:

How many Civil Society statements are drafted and sent to the Secretary General on this issue?  Why are we so worried about the length of the statement when it is not verbose by any standards and when there aren't too many statements from Civil Society on this issue? The IGC is making this statement on behalf of most of its several CS members, so it is ok if the statement is long enough to include the facts, arguments and express all our concerns.

Brevity without sufficient reason is unnecessary and would leave so much unsaid.

I am not arguing for reducing the size of the statement in total, just that the sentences are too long and complex.

Breaking them up will make the document longer whilst making it easier to comprehend and translate accurately. 

Regards

       f

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
   governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
   governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
   http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979

-----Inline Attachment Follows----- 

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-- 
“The fundamental cure for poverty is not money but knowledge" Sir William Arthur Lewis, Nobel Prize Economics, 1979

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
    governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
    governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
    http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t

-----Inline Attachment Follows-----

____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/governance/attachments/20100222/b9982104/attachment.htm>
-------------- next part --------------
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
     governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, send any message to:
     governance-unsubscribe at lists.cpsr.org

For all list information and functions, see:
     http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance

Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t