Private Messages

[RobJohnson]

I asked someone who is a long term member for their opinion on a post that I had read on here, I sent a private message. Their answer was they did not trust private message and they would not answer, they said that it was too easy to pass a message round, messages were not private.

This cannot be right surely, it does not say very much for people.

[jar]

Of course anything anyone can read on the internet can be passed on to others.

[RobJohnson]

Of course anything anyone can read on the internet can be passed on to others.

Thanks for the reply.

I think you are saying that the confidentiality of private messages is not certain. Think twice for PMing

[Pterodactylus]

At least for me PMˋs are ok.
And nobody want to share top secret infos with PM‘s

[RobJohnson]

At least for me PMˋs are ok.
And nobody want to share top secret infos with PM‘s

I think that is a good motto.

[Chrissy]

When you send Private Messages they are certainly private, and can't be viewed by anyone else, when you send them to a member or members on FPGeeks.

It's possible that the member you made contact with believes that their previous recipients of private messages can quote, or send contents of, private messages they have received to others which I assume they can. That's probably the case with Private Messages on all fora and it always has been so.

People could always quote extracts of written personal messages they received too. It's surely always been like that. After all, when you tell someone something, regardless of how you tell them, there is nothing to prevent them from telling it to someone else.

[RobJohnson]

When you send Private Messages they are certainly private, and can't be viewed by anyone else, when you send them to a member or members on FPGeeks.

It's possible that the member you made contact with believes that their previous recipients of private messages can quote, or send contents of, private messages they have received to others which I assume they can. That's probably the case with Private Messages on all fora and it always has been so.

People could always quote extracts of written personal messages they received too. It's surely always been like that. After all, when you tell someone something, regardless of how you tell them, there is nothing to prevent them from telling it to someone else.

Therefore whilst they are Private, they cannot be thought of as confidential amd the recipient can pass around exactly what you may have said privately and you would be a fool for thinking that it was for their eyes only.

The golden rule would seem to be do not trust a private message and people must feel a little bit disappointed if they found out that the message that they thought was private was being shared.

[silverlifter]

The golden rule would seem to be do not trust a private message.

Well, the golden rule is to actually choose carefully whom you place your trust in. Technology, even end-to-end encryption, won't protect you from a bad faith actor.

[RobJohnson]

The golden rule would seem to be do not trust a private message.

Well, the golden rule is to actually choose carefully whom you place your trust in. Technology, even end-to-end encryption, won't protect you from a bad faith actor.

Good point. Trust nobody and you will never be disappointed.

[Chrissy]

Therefore whilst they are Private, they cannot be thought of as confidential amd the recipient can pass around exactly what you may have said privately and you would be a fool for thinking that it was for their eyes only.

The golden rule would seem to be do not trust a private message and people must feel a little bit disappointed if they found out that the message that they thought was private was being shared.

They are only called Private Messages because they aren't public messages that everyone can read. It's up to the people concerned whether they are, or remain, confidential or not.

On FPGeeks it's not easy to delete Inbox messages. You can delete them individually if you use Tapatalk, but on here you can only delete all of the messages in your Inbox. Even if you do that, they don't disappear unless the sender also deletes them. Therefore at least two different people have to be relied upon to ensure a message is deleted. As a system, it's a bit clunky. :(

[TSherbs]

Private messages are not confidential. Initially, they can be seen only by one account. After that, anything can happen.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Pterodactylus]

Isnˋt this a bit weird discussion?

This is a pen forum?
Anything you send to somebody else, digitally or analog can be copied, forwarded, published, quoted, ......

If you want avoid this just don’t communicate with somebody else. :boink:

So what?

:dirol:

[Chrissy]

Private messages are not confidential. Initially, they can be seen only by one account. After that, anything can happen.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
You can send Private Messages to several members at the same time, then all of the replies from each member go to all of those original members. That can become a bit clunky too.

[jar]

Of course anything anyone can read on the internet can be passed on to others.

Thanks for the reply.

I think you are saying that the confidentiality of private messages is not certain. Think twice for PMing

Nothing on the Internet is confidential. Think twice before PMing or texting or phoning or mailing of saying or ...

[Pterodactylus]

Of course anything anyone can read on the internet can be passed on to others.

Thanks for the reply.

I think you are saying that the confidentiality of private messages is not certain. Think twice for PMing

Nothing on the Internet is confidential. Think twice before PMing or texting or phoning or mailing of saying or ...

True 😎

Or to say it with Benjamin Franklin‘s words:

„Three may keep a secret if two of them are dead“

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Confidentiality of private correspondence is an ethical choice (beyond one's correspondence getting hacked that is). There are situations where that confidentiality must be set aside and information disclosed. Mostly these are legal or health related situations, so shouldn't affect a pen forum!

Having said that, we are all absorbing a lot of data, and that data can influence what we say to others. There is no doubt that information in a confidential correspondence may at some point be rephrased and anonymised for the consumption of others. We all do it, often subconsciously. However, that is quite different from deliberately outing what a correspondent has said.

One of my pet peeves with the messaging system here is that some members will openly attack someone on a forum thread and then block the messaging pathway for that person to respond privately. It's a low class behaviour that's happened to me on several occasions and also, to my knowledge, to a few others.

Also, people who don't acknowledge receipt of a message. It's discourteous.

This is a pen forum and by extension we should be proud to say that we are enthusiastic communicators...

[TSherbs]

Private messages are not confidential. Initially, they can be seen only by one account. After that, anything can happen.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
You can send Private Messages to several members at the same time, then all of the replies from each member go to all of those original members. That can become a bit clunky too.I didn't know this. Now, if I only had more than one friend....

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[An old bloke]

I asked someone who is a long term member for their opinion on a post that I had read on here, I sent a private message. Their answer was they did not trust private message and they would not answer, they said that it was too easy to pass a message round, messages were not private.

This cannot be right surely, it does not say very much for people.

Has the irony struck you that in their refusal to answer the question, they replied to you PM, answering a message that is now being passed around, and thusly not 'private'? Bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy that.

[FredRydr]

I asked someone who is a long term member for their opinion on a post that I had read on here, I sent a private message. Their answer was they did not trust private message and they would not answer, they said that it was too easy to pass a message round, messages were not private.

This cannot be right surely, it does not say very much for people.

Has the irony struck you that in their refusal to answer the question, they replied to you PM, answering a message that is now being passed around, and thusly not 'private'? Bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy that.
LOL

[An old bloke]

... One of my pet peeves with the messaging system here is that some members will openly attack someone on a forum thread and then block the messaging pathway for that person to respond privately. It's a low class behaviour that's happened to me on several occasions and also, to my knowledge, to a few others. ...

I would offer that is internet troll behaviour. It leave the offended no other option, but to respond on the forum, which results in even more 'trolling'.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I tend to agree. In one instance it was a person who accuses me (and still does) of being a troll. So the irony of that is not lost, but still I would prefer people to at least try to be kind. For more good advice see the excellent words of Jon Szanto in my sig. :)

[Jon Szanto]

Private messages are not confidential. Initially, they can be seen only by one account. After that, anything can happen.

Actually, *two*, if you count the owner/admin of the site.

[TSherbs]

Private messages are not confidential. Initially, they can be seen only by one account. After that, anything can happen.

Actually, *two*, if you count the owner/admin of the site.True. Thx for the correction.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[RobJohnson]

I asked someone who is a long term member for their opinion on a post that I had read on here, I sent a private message. Their answer was they did not trust private message and they would not answer, they said that it was too easy to pass a message round, messages were not private.

This cannot be right surely, it does not say very much for people.



Has the irony struck you that in their refusal to answer the question, they replied to you PM, answering a message that is now being passed around, and thusly not 'private'? Bit of a self-fulfilling prophecy that.

Hi, yes I got the idea, I interpreted their thinking that they were not interested in passing on anything of interest to others, they wanted nothing 'quotable', especially as they did not know me.

[RobJohnson]

My office is open plan, 30 people and no walls other than glass walls for meeting rooms, the CEO can see and hear everything and also the interns and juniors. There is a Messenger system, similar to the Yahoo/MSN Messenger of 20 years ago. It gets abused, people use it for nasty gossip and cut and paste what is said for later use against the others. It has also become very cliquey, people have their freind groups which excludes others. One person, a POC, has started a legal action claiming the system is divisive, racist and has been used for sexist comments and we will shut the system down.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Yeah, you get that cliquey stuff going on here too. Probably an unavoidable aspect of human groups. There is further irony in that people here protest against such observations despite being in an exclusionary clique themselves, but that is a different question to the OP.

Whatever I write in a PM I consider confidential. If a recipient decides to report those words in open forum then I will stand by those words. The practical effect is that if I judge the revealing to be ill-advised or malicious then that recipient will no longer receive PMs of any substance. Doesn't mean I won't talk to them, I'm not that small minded, just that there would be limits on the content of conversations.

I'd rather hear what someone has to say than not.

[An old bloke]

Quoting from above, 'Whatever I write in a PM I consider confidential.', I assume that tongues wag and anything I offer may be repeated with, or without me knowing it. That being the case, I consider what I have to say and temper what I write or say with the expectation that it may be called to question, or at least repeated.

As for forum cliques -- or any form of social clique -- while I understand that like minded people will naturally group together, especially the 'group think lot that we see more frequently today, I do not personally engage in them. I cherish my individualism, appreciate the uniqueness and dignity that each person possesses, and have neither the desire nor the inclination to be 'in'. Like Empty of Clouds, I too would rather hear what others think and have to say. I may learn something from them for the effort.

[RobJohnson]

Quoting from above, 'Whatever I write in a PM I consider confidential.', I assume that tongues wag and anything I offer may be repeated with, or without me knowing it. That being the case, I consider what I have to say and temper what I write or say with the expectation that it may be called to question, or at least repeated.

As for forum cliques -- or any form of social clique -- while I understand that like minded people will naturally group together, especially the 'group think lot that we see more frequently today, I do not personally engage in them. I cherish my individualism, appreciate the uniqueness and dignity that each person possesses, and have neither the desire nor the inclination to be 'in'. Like Empty of Clouds, I too would rather hear what others think and have to say. I may learn something from them for the effort.

You make some interesting points.

Many of us are involved in letter exchanges, I would be shocked if someone was to scan a letter of mine and forward it, possibly by PM on FPG, to anyone else at all, I suspect that many of us would feel the same, I would be surprised if the forwarding of private messages within these cliques does not happen.

[Pterodactylus]

You make some interesting points.

Many of us are involved in letter exchanges, I would be shocked if someone was to scan a letter of mine and forward it, possibly by PM on FPG, to anyone else at all, I suspect that many of us would feel the same, I would be surprised if the forwarding of private messages within these cliques does not happen.


Maybe you overestimate the interestingness of your private messages to other people (especially to ones who do not know you). 😝

:jaw:


Or maybe I underestimate the content of your private messages regarding e.g. their frivolity, sexiness, whistle blowing, entertainment, pornographic, global importance, philosophical, .... factors.


:bolt:



Or with other words:

At age 20, we worry about what others think of us. At 40, we don't care what they think of us. At 60, we discover they haven't been thinking of us at all. - Ann Landers

[RobJohnson]

You make some interesting points.

Many of us are involved in letter exchanges, I would be shocked if someone was to scan a letter of mine and forward it, possibly by PM on FPG, to anyone else at all, I suspect that many of us would feel the same, I would be surprised if the forwarding of private messages within these cliques does not happen.


Maybe you overestimate the interestingness of your private messages to other people (especially to ones who do not know you). 😝

:jaw:


Or maybe I underestimate the content of your private messages regarding e.g. their frivolity, sexiness, whistle blowing, entertainment, pornographic, global importance, philosophical, .... factors.


:bolt:



Or with other words:

At age 20, we worry about what others think of us. At 40, we don't care what they think of us. At 60, we discover they haven't been thinking of us at all. - Ann Landers

Thanks for your observations.

I am not one to go into details but my comment was not hypothetical.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Quoting from above, 'Whatever I write in a PM I consider confidential.', I assume that tongues wag and anything I offer may be repeated with, or without me knowing it. That being the case, I consider what I have to say and temper what I write or say with the expectation that it may be called to question, or at least repeated.

Just to clarify. Whilst I consider PMs to be confidential, I understand there is no obligation for them to be so beyond our personal ethics. My position is that I will start off with that level trust. Where my opinion of someone goes from there depends on their actions alone.

[RobJohnson]

Quoting from above, 'Whatever I write in a PM I consider confidential.', I assume that tongues wag and anything I offer may be repeated with, or without me knowing it. That being the case, I consider what I have to say and temper what I write or say with the expectation that it may be called to question, or at least repeated.

Just to clarify. Whilst I consider PMs to be confidential, I understand there is no obligation for them to be so beyond our personal ethics. My position is that I will start off with that level trust. Where my opinion of someone goes from there depends on their actions alone.

I suspect that you are a man with a kinder temperament than many. In terms of a trust scale I would rate people at a zero and work from there, other people have said as much to me and there have been some, frankly, bloody awful posts in open forum which show how low some people are prepared to go, even long established members.

But I agree with you Empty, it would be wonderful if a PM could be thought of as confidential, but you cannot rely on that.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Heh! I should also add that my hypothetical 'trust level', like any investment, may go up or down. Once it moves it does not have a set trajectory thereafter.

[TSherbs]

Yeah, you get that cliquey stuff going on here too... .

Chrissy just alerted me to group private messages here, which means, since I have never been in one, that I am not one of the cool kids.

I'm dancin' with my sel-elf....





Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[FredRydr]

Chrissy just alerted me to group private messages here, which means, since I have never been in one, that I am not one of the cool kids.

I'm dancin' with my sel-elf....
Should I be envious? :grouphug:

[Chrissy]

Chrissy just alerted me to group private messages here, which means, since I have never been in one, that I am not one of the cool kids.

I'm dancin' with my sel-elf....





Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk
It's not really a group private message, it's just that it's a normal feature of Private Messaging on fora that you can select more than one recipient of a PM. That's how someone makes contact with more than one person when necessary.
It's the same on FPN.

[Ray-VIgo]

Certain types of internet forum software permits admins to view the contents of private messages and "send email" messages passed through the board. I am not sure if that software is used here. I was an admin at another board where such viewing was possible, and the software allowed us to see everything sent, public or private.

[RobJohnson]

Certain types of internet forum software permits admins to view the contents of private messages and "send email" messages passed through the board. I am not sure if that software is used here. I was an admin at another board where such viewing was possible, and the software allowed us to see everything sent, public or private.

So I understand, in fact people have been caught out by this software allowing Mods to see the emails of Watched members, a Moderator told me on another forum that a banned member had been watched for quite some time.

[Chrissy]

Certain types of internet forum software permits admins to view the contents of private messages and "send email" messages passed through the board. I am not sure if that software is used here. I was an admin at another board where such viewing was possible, and the software allowed us to see everything sent, public or private.
I wasn't aware that could definitely happen despite having heard that it might sometimes be the case. I was advised by the administrator on another forum that it definitely was not the case.

[RobJohnson]

My understanding is that most if not all forum platforms include the provision for admin/mods/IT Admin to inspect any Private Message especially following complaints from other members of such things as harassment, coercion, fraud etc. When you think about it, it would only be logical for Admin to have that facility.

Another forum that I am in makes this specific comment in their rules on Private Messages:


Whilst personal conversations are not visible publicly or to other members of the forum, except to those people in the conversation, forum admin and/or server admin may be able to access the conversations under certain circumstances. For this reason Private Messages should not actually be called "Private"


Please note that the ability for admin to view personal messages is common to any similar forum software. Our policy is not to read personal conversations or allow any third party access unless special circumstances require it, however you are advised to be aware that nothing you say in personal conversations on this, or any other forum that we know of, is truly private. If you want to discuss completely private matters with other members, then you are advised to do so via email, telephone or other forms of communication.

[silverlifter]

My understanding is that most if not all forum platforms include the provision for admin/mods/IT Admin to inspect any Private Message especially follwoing complaints from other members of such things as harassment, coercion, fraud etc. When you think about it, it would only be logical for Admin to have that facility.

Nope. At least not in the foss world. Message are typically handled by email, and so are not accessible by the mods, or in most cases the admins. They may be able to see the metadata, but not the messages themselves. GDPR has reinforced this: don't log or hold data, especially personal information, that you have no legitimate reason to.

[RobJohnson]

Thank you Silverlifter, would you expect FPG, FPN and a few others that are similar to be Free and Open-source software.

I had not thought about GDPR and I note your qualifier with regards to legitimacy, I think that a complaint from others with regards to harassment and so on would justify the legitimacy question.

I suspect that some members on forums have had membership withdrawn after Mods have read their PMs.

I don't want to labour the point but it seems to me that no Private Message can be thought of as truly private, as in 'For Your Eyes only' because the receiver is free to cut, paste and publish and also others in control (and FPG may be an exception, I don't know) may have access to whatever you say to others.

[Ole Juul]

My understanding is that most if not all forum platforms include the provision for admin/mods/IT Admin to inspect any Private Message especially follwoing complaints from other members of such things as harassment, coercion, fraud etc. When you think about it, it would only be logical for Admin to have that facility.

Nope. At least not in the foss world. Message are typically handled by email, and so are not accessible by the mods, or in most cases the admins. They may be able to see the metadata, but not the messages themselves. GDPR has reinforced this: don't log or hold data, especially personal information, that you have no legitimate reason to.

vBulletin is far from foss though. I'm not up to date on current security issues, but vBulletin also has quite a checkered past in that regard.

[silverlifter]

I think that a complaint from others with regards to harassment and so on would justify the legitimacy question.

Well, in order to be harassed in a PM, the victim by necessity must be a party to the conversation. Therefore they have access to the evidence and can provide it to the staff, or external authorities in the event of a breach of the law, to substantiate their allegations. So there is no legitimate reason for mods to have acess to private messages, in my view.

Their is also an element of plausible deniability. In the case where conspirators are using the private message function of a forum to plan unlawful acts, would the staff be expected to be able monitor all pms just to expose such activities? Again, I can't think of a scenario where this would be desirable, either from an administrative or cultural perspective.

Private messages are intended to be just that, private. If you set up your system in such a way that violates that principle, then you aren't running a "community", you are either a creep or part of the panopticon.

[RobJohnson]

I think that a complaint from others with regards to harassment and so on would justify the legitimacy question.

Well, in order to be harassed in a PM, the victim by necessity must be a party to the conversation. Therefore they have access to the evidence and can provide it to the staff, or external authorities in the event of a breach of the law, to substantiate their allegations. So there is no legitimate reason for mods to have acess to private messages, in my view.

Their is also an element of plausible deniability. In the case where conspirators are using the private message function of a forum to plan unlawful acts, would the staff be expected to be able monitor all pms just to expose such activities? Again, I can't think of a scenario where this would be desirable, either from an administrative or cultural perspective.

Private messages are intended to be just that, private. If you set up your system in such a way that violates that principle, then you aren't running a "community", you are either a creep or part of the panopticon.

The forum rule wasnt thinking of harassment in a PM, more open forum. For example I recall a husband and wife team who were forever ganging up on people that they disagreed with, a dual attack.

The harsassment was therefore not in a PM but it was verified by the Mods who looked at the PMs, both were made to leave.

I cannot see we are in the realm of unlawful acts here, you have gone a step or two too far. I would hope that Mods only review PMs when they have just cause.

I agree your point on the intention of Private Messages, what I am saying is that they may not be as private and confidential as you might wish.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

To restate, if it hasn't already been done in this thread, there are no mods here. And the owner is the only Admin (as far as anyone knows). While the owner appears to play little to no part in the daily functioning of the website, they are often quick to respond to direct contact.

[FredRydr]

...I would hope that Mods only review PMs when they have just cause....
There are none. Mods, that is.

[Jon Szanto]

https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mod-showing-off-scooter.jpg

[dneal]

Once you say or write it, it's out "in the wild".

If you don't say (or write) things you're not willing to stand by, then there's really no problem.

[jar]

https://allthatsinteresting.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2017/07/mod-showing-off-scooter.jpg

When a Vespa was a motorcycle.

[An old bloke]

Oh yeah. The UK in the middle 1960s. There were the 'Mods' with their Lambretta and Vespa scooters and coats, ties and nice clothes, and then there were the rockers (AKA 'leather boys') with their BSA, Triumph, etc. motorcycles -- or as we called them, 'motor-bikes'. Fun days, long ago.

Here is a link for the curious too young to remember it: https://www.anglotopia.net/british-identity/rockers-vs-mods-battle-subcultures-moral-panic/


If you must know, I had a motorbike back then.

[An old bloke]

Oh yeah. The UK in the middle 1960s. There were the 'Mods' with their Lambretta and Vespa scooters and coats, ties and nice clothes, and then there were the rockers (AKA 'leather boys') with their BSA, Triumph, etc. motorcycles -- or as we called them, 'motor-bikes'. Fun days, long ago.

BTW, a Vespa was never a 'motorcycle' nor will it ever be.

Here is a link for the curious too young to remember it: https://www.anglotopia.net/british-identity/rockers-vs-mods-battle-subcultures-moral-panic/


If you must know, I had a motorbike back then.

[Jon Szanto]

Here is a link for the curious too young to remember it...

Ah, if only that were the case! Probably in no time at all, I'll be too old to remember those days.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/54/ee/89/54ee8949452ed6c1c5942bca39c2c5ea.jpg

[kazoolaw]

To restate, if it hasn't already been done in this thread, there are no mods here. And the owner is the only Admin (as far as anyone knows). While the owner appears to play little to no part in the daily functioning of the website, they are often quick to respond to direct contact.

Someone locked a thread: owner or mod?

Is the "owner" more than one person: "While the owner...they are often quick...." We all make spelling or grammatical errors, and I get confused at pairing what I think is a singular noun [owner] with a plural pronoun [they].

Just looking for clarification.

[RobJohnson]

In this situation I think that the reference to 'they' applies to a single person.


On a seperate issue, and I am no grammar expert, I understand that there is a growing movement to avoid the use of he or she in descriptions and to make the sentence fit the use of the word 'they', the correct phrase is a singular they.

In the past you might have said

Everyone should enjoy his or her new pen.

to

Everyone should enjoy their new pen

or

Each student student at the pen repair class submitted their work to the teacher.

and not

Each student at the pen repair class submitted his or her work to the teacher.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

To restate, if it hasn't already been done in this thread, there are no mods here. And the owner is the only Admin (as far as anyone knows). While the owner appears to play little to no part in the daily functioning of the website, they are often quick to respond to direct contact.

Someone locked a thread: owner or mod?

Is the "owner" more than one person: "While the owner...they are often quick...." We all make spelling or grammatical errors, and I get confused at pairing what I think is a singular noun [owner] with a plural pronoun [they].

Just looking for clarification.





Use “they” as a generic third-person singular pronoun to refer to a person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant to the context of the usage.

From the American Psychological Association (APA) guide on style and grammar. [note, I work in academic research so have a tendency to use this kind of styling]


As for the locked thread, it was locked after I had reported a post as being beyond acceptable. Whether I was the only one to do so I do not know. Either way, the owner locked it quickly and, though their actions required a response in this case, we've lost a valuable member of the "community".

That last post is a good example of why people should take their off-topic disagreements to PM rather than airing them publically.

[Chrissy]

To restate, if it hasn't already been done in this thread, there are no mods here. And the owner is the only Admin (as far as anyone knows). While the owner appears to play little to no part in the daily functioning of the website, they are often quick to respond to direct contact.

Is the "owner" more than one person: "While the owner...they are often quick...." We all make spelling or grammatical errors, and I get confused at pairing what I think is a singular noun [owner] with a plural pronoun [they].

Just looking for clarification.


It's a tricky one. However, knowing that the owner is singular and male I would have used he and not they in that particular sentence especially as it follows "While the owner appears to play little to no part" which has already suggested the owner as a singular noun in the same sentence.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Neither is incorrect, as noted in my APA reference for when the gender of the person in question is irrelevant.

[TSherbs]

Here is a link for the curious too young to remember it...

Ah, if only that were the case! Probably in no time at all, I'll be too old to remember those days.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/54/ee/89/54ee8949452ed6c1c5942bca39c2c5ea.jpg

I ride a GS scooter with my hair cut neat
Wear my war-time coat in the wind and sleet

[FredRydr]

GS scooter? Is that a Vespa with TKC80s?

[TSherbs]

Dunno.

It's a song lyric from the album that Jon Sz referenced: one of my favorite albums of all time.

I'm not schizophrenic, I'm bloody quadrophenic!

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[An old bloke]

Neither is incorrect, as noted in my APA reference for when the gender of the person in question is irrelevant.

I'll offer that while your APA reference has a nice politically correct ring to it, and solves a psychologist's problem of not 'gender-ising', it is not grammatically correct. Correct grammar is to use, 'he or she'. Yes, that assumes the binary, and does not allow for those who identify as asexual or 'other', in which case one can use the only English language gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. The reality is someone, somewhere, somehow may be offended no matter what pronoun is used, but you will be grammatically correct.

In the end, it is your choice what you use.

[RobJohnson]

To restate, if it hasn't already been done in this thread, there are no mods here. And the owner is the only Admin (as far as anyone knows). While the owner appears to play little to no part in the daily functioning of the website, they are often quick to respond to direct contact.

Someone locked a thread: owner or mod?

Is the "owner" more than one person: "While the owner...they are often quick...." We all make spelling or grammatical errors, and I get confused at pairing what I think is a singular noun [owner] with a plural pronoun [they].

Just looking for clarification.








As for the locked thread, it was locked after I had reported a post as being beyond acceptable. Whether I was the only one to do so I do not know. Either way, the owner locked it quickly and, though their actions required a response in this case, we've lost a valuable member of the "community".

That last post is a good example of why people should take their off-topic disagreements to PM rather than airing them publically.

That is magnanimous of you given that the poster in question referrenced you.

[TSherbs]

Neither is incorrect, as noted in my APA reference for when the gender of the person in question is irrelevant.

I'll offer that while your APA reference has a nice politically correct ring to it, and solves a psychologist's problem of not 'gender-ising', it is not grammatically correct. Correct grammar is to use, 'he or she'. Yes, that assumes the binary, and does not allow for those who identify as asexual or 'other', in which case one can use the only English language gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. The reality is someone, somewhere, somehow may be offended no matter what pronoun is used, but you will be grammatically correct.

In the end, it is your choice what you use.Actually, it is grammatical now. The rule has changed in this case. Grammar rules have all sorts of exceptions-- the exceptions are grammatical too. Antecedents no longer have to match their pronouns in number in all cases. It is no longer an "all" requirement.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[An old bloke]

Neither is incorrect, as noted in my APA reference for when the gender of the person in question is irrelevant.

I'll offer that while your APA reference has a nice politically correct ring to it, and solves a psychologist's problem of not 'gender-ising', it is not grammatically correct. Correct grammar is to use, 'he or she'. Yes, that assumes the binary, and does not allow for those who identify as asexual or 'other', in which case one can use the only English language gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. The reality is someone, somewhere, somehow may be offended no matter what pronoun is used, but you will be grammatically correct.

In the end, it is your choice what you use.Actually, it is grammatical now. The rule has changed in this case. Grammar rules have all sorts of exceptions-- the exceptions are grammatical too. Antecedents no longer have to match their pronouns in number in all cases. It is no longer an "all" requirement.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

I don't disagree, but try telling that to a copy editor or proof reader.

[catbert]

Neither is incorrect, as noted in my APA reference for when the gender of the person in question is irrelevant.

I'll offer that while your APA reference has a nice politically correct ring to it, and solves a psychologist's problem of not 'gender-ising', it is not grammatically correct. Correct grammar is to use, 'he or she'. Yes, that assumes the binary, and does not allow for those who identify as asexual or 'other', in which case one can use the only English language gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. The reality is someone, somewhere, somehow may be offended no matter what pronoun is used, but you will be grammatically correct.

In the end, it is your choice what you use.Actually, it is grammatical now. The rule has changed in this case. Grammar rules have all sorts of exceptions-- the exceptions are grammatical too. Antecedents no longer have to match their pronouns in number in all cases. It is no longer an "all" requirement.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

I don't disagree, but try telling that to a copy editor or proof reader.

A brief history of singular 'they' (https://public.oed.com/blog/a-brief-history-of-singular-they/) (OED)

[silverlifter]

Neither is incorrect, as noted in my APA reference for when the gender of the person in question is irrelevant.

I'll offer that while your APA reference has a nice politically correct ring to it, and solves a psychologist's problem of not 'gender-ising', it is not grammatically correct. Correct grammar is to use, 'he or she'. Yes, that assumes the binary, and does not allow for those who identify as asexual or 'other', in which case one can use the only English language gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. The reality is someone, somewhere, somehow may be offended no matter what pronoun is used, but you will be grammatically correct.

In the end, it is your choice what you use.Actually, it is grammatical now. The rule has changed in this case. Grammar rules have all sorts of exceptions-- the exceptions are grammatical too. Antecedents no longer have to match their pronouns in number in all cases. It is no longer an "all" requirement.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

I don't disagree, but try telling that to a copy editor or proof reader.

No need (https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/ap-stylebook-embraces-they-singular-gender-neutral-pronoun-n739076).

[Ole Juul]

They, is soooo 2019.

Merriam-Webster: Non-binary pronoun 'they' is word of year (https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50735371)

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Neither is incorrect, as noted in my APA reference for when the gender of the person in question is irrelevant.

I'll offer that while your APA reference has a nice politically correct ring to it, and solves a psychologist's problem of not 'gender-ising', it is not grammatically correct. Correct grammar is to use, 'he or she'. Yes, that assumes the binary, and does not allow for those who identify as asexual or 'other', in which case one can use the only English language gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. The reality is someone, somewhere, somehow may be offended no matter what pronoun is used, but you will be grammatically correct.

In the end, it is your choice what you use.Actually, it is grammatical now. The rule has changed in this case. Grammar rules have all sorts of exceptions-- the exceptions are grammatical too. Antecedents no longer have to match their pronouns in number in all cases. It is no longer an "all" requirement.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

I don't disagree, but try telling that to a copy editor or proof reader.

That's funny to me. Among the many different roles I play in my working life is that of both copy editor and proof reader, and that's on the submission side. I am also on the editorial board of an international scientific journal. The thing is, most journals dictate the style they want. APA is one of the more common ones. Apart from this, language evolves. A grammar guide from 50 years ago contains 'rules' that have been reworked, updated or just plain discarded today. In 50 years time no doubt this will change again. It's kind of fun having to keep up, though at times also a touch irritating. :)

[Empty_of_Clouds]

To restate, if it hasn't already been done in this thread, there are no mods here. And the owner is the only Admin (as far as anyone knows). While the owner appears to play little to no part in the daily functioning of the website, they are often quick to respond to direct contact.

Someone locked a thread: owner or mod?

Is the "owner" more than one person: "While the owner...they are often quick...." We all make spelling or grammatical errors, and I get confused at pairing what I think is a singular noun [owner] with a plural pronoun [they].

Just looking for clarification.








As for the locked thread, it was locked after I had reported a post as being beyond acceptable. Whether I was the only one to do so I do not know. Either way, the owner locked it quickly and, though their actions required a response in this case, we've lost a valuable member of the "community".

That last post is a good example of why people should take their off-topic disagreements to PM rather than airing them publically.

That is magnanimous of you given that the poster in question referrenced you.


Perhaps, but in this case I was merely trying to be factual. Deb has indicated to me that she has withdrawn from the forum, and no doubt has to those who she considers friends (i.e. anyone other than me!). It is a pity because her knowledge and helpfulness (even to me) will be missed by many here.

It's curious. In spite of some of the heated arguments I've been involved in, I don't really dislike anyone here. It's just how my mind and heart work.

[TSherbs]

I don't disagree, but try telling that to a copy editor or proof reader.

Although I am technically a high school teacher of literature, I have to grade students on their grammar, including their pronoun usage. And I occasionally function as a copy editor for school materials. So it behooves me to be up-to-date on accepted practices. The singular "their" is officially accepted by professional copy editors (albeit not *all* of them).

Style manuals that now accept singular "they" (with limitations):

APA
Associated Press Stylebook
Chicago Manual of Style

[An old bloke]

I don't disagree, but try telling that to a copy editor or proof reader.

Although I am technically a high school teacher of literature, I have to grade students on their grammar, including their pronoun usage. And I occasionally function as a copy editor for school materials. So it behooves me to be up-to-date on accepted practices. The singular "their" is officially accepted by professional copy editors (albeit not *all* of them).

Style manuals that now accept singular "they" (with limitations):

APA
Associated Press Stylebook
Chicago Manual of Style

The bookcase to the immediate right of my computer desk is full of dictionaries (two of which are Oxford Press), grammar manuals including the Collins and the Oxford English; A Guide to the Language, and numerous punctuation guides. While I am retired now I have written numerous articles, a number of research papers and even copy edited another author's book length manuscript. I am a reader and fan GK Chesterton, Hillaire Belloc, and numerous other early to middle 20th Century writers. This being the case, I am well aware that our language changes, that style, and even word usage and meanings change. Language has evolved from the language of even two decades ago, and will continue long after I am gone. Yet, change, as Chesterton pointed out about a century ago, is not always good. There is some virtue in retaining tradition, and yes Chesterton said that as well. Some of seek to retain some of our language's traditions if only to make the wisdom and the words of our earlier writers accessible.

There is also the element of the artistic in our language, the use of words to express an idea or an emotion, that should not be lost. Do we, or should we, allow the art of the word to be lost in the technical?

[TSherbs]

....

There is also the element of the artistic in our language, the use of words to express an idea or an emotion, that should not be lost. Do we, or should we, allow the art of the word to be lost in the technical?

No art or significant tradition is being lost here. Your questions/concerns strike me as hyperbolic. It's just a pronoun variance with limited scope of application, lol.

Shakespeare introduced more change than this! Was "art" lost?

Whatever standard of language you admire most was also a new change at some point, hounded by its detractors. There was no true Golden Age.

Feel me?



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[An old bloke]

No, I don't 'feel' you whatever that is supposed to mean.

I actually agree with what you are saying, and I am not suggesting that neither we nor our language remain static. No hyperbole is intended. I am only offering food for thought here, specifically, '... Chesterton pointed out about a century ago, is not always good. There is some virtue in retaining tradition, and yes Chesterton said that as well. Some of seek to retain some of our language's traditions if only to make the wisdom and the words of our earlier writers accessible. There is also the element of the artistic in our language, the use of words to express an idea or an emotion, that should not be lost. Do we, or should we, allow the art of the word to be lost in the technical?' Am I wrong to do so?

[Empty_of_Clouds]

I can't speak for anyone else of course, but when a change such as the one in discussion here occurs, it does not replace my previous understanding of the 'rules'. It adds to it. So nothing is really lost. I, and no doubt many others, can easily read and understand English text all the way back to and including Chaucer, maybe even earlier. It is my guess that this kind of skill is more important to those of us who feel it is important! Language and rule drift largely don't affect the majority of people I also guess. Interesting topic.

[guyy]

Neither is incorrect, as noted in my APA reference for when the gender of the person in question is irrelevant.

I'll offer that while your APA reference has a nice politically correct ring to it, and solves a psychologist's problem of not 'gender-ising', it is not grammatically correct. Correct grammar is to use, 'he or she'. Yes, that assumes the binary, and does not allow for those who identify as asexual or 'other', in which case one can use the only English language gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. The reality is someone, somewhere, somehow may be offended no matter what pronoun is used, but you will be grammatically correct.

In the end, it is your choice what you use.

Grammar is made up after the fact, by people who take note of linguistic practice and decide on norms. Not all grammarians agree what those norms are. One thing is certain: as a language evolves, so too will its grammar.

[An old bloke]

Neither is incorrect, as noted in my APA reference for when the gender of the person in question is irrelevant.

I'll offer that while your APA reference has a nice politically correct ring to it, and solves a psychologist's problem of not 'gender-ising', it is not grammatically correct. Correct grammar is to use, 'he or she'. Yes, that assumes the binary, and does not allow for those who identify as asexual or 'other', in which case one can use the only English language gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. The reality is someone, somewhere, somehow may be offended no matter what pronoun is used, but you will be grammatically correct.

In the end, it is your choice what you use.

Grammar is made up after the fact, by people who take note of linguistic practice and decide on norms. Not all grammarians agree what those norms are. One thing is certain: as a language evolves, so too will its grammar.
True. Also, grammatic rules and usage can differ regionally. For instance, "quotation marks" is correct usage in the US and Australia, but 'quotation marks' is correct in the UK an Ireland. Word spellings differ as well.

[An old bloke]

Neither is incorrect, as noted in my APA reference for when the gender of the person in question is irrelevant.

I'll offer that while your APA reference has a nice politically correct ring to it, and solves a psychologist's problem of not 'gender-ising', it is not grammatically correct. Correct grammar is to use, 'he or she'. Yes, that assumes the binary, and does not allow for those who identify as asexual or 'other', in which case one can use the only English language gender neutral pronoun, 'it'. The reality is someone, somewhere, somehow may be offended no matter what pronoun is used, but you will be grammatically correct.

In the end, it is your choice what you use.

Grammar is made up after the fact, by people who take note of linguistic practice and decide on norms. Not all grammarians agree what those norms are. One thing is certain: as a language evolves, so too will its grammar.

True. Also, grammatic rules and usage can differ regionally. For instance, "quotation marks" is correct usage in the US and Australia, but 'quotation marks' is correct in the UK an Ireland. Word spellings differ as well.

[Jon Szanto]

English-utilizing humans still regularly butcher their/they're/there. I have precious little hope that the ever-expanding gender linguistic challenge will be met with much success.

[Chrissy]

English-utilizing humans still regularly butcher their/they're/there. I have precious little hope that the ever-expanding gender linguistic challenge will be met with much success.
I've been reading a few things about it and found that it's accepted and regularly used especially in situations when you don't know or need to know the gender applicable pronoun.
As far as Eric, the owner/administrator is concerned, he is known as Eric and male so respectfully I would still refer to him as he/his/him. :)

[Jon Szanto]

I've been reading a few things about it and found that it's accepted and regularly used especially in situations when you don't know or need to know the gender applicable pronoun.
As far as Eric, the owner/administrator is concerned, he is known as Eric and male so respectfully I would still refer to him as he/his/him. :)

Chrissy, I was speaking broadly, not connected to any specific examples.

[Chrissy]

Chrissy, I was speaking broadly, not connected to any specific examples.
Yes, got that. :)

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Use “they” as a generic third-person singular pronoun to refer to a person whose gender is unknown or irrelevant to the context of the usage.

From the American Psychological Association (APA) guide on style and grammar. [note, I work in academic research so have a tendency to use this kind of styling]

I used 'they' under the second emphasised bit above.

[TSherbs]

No, I don't 'feel' you whatever that is supposed to mean.

I actually agree with what you are saying, and I am not suggesting that neither we nor our language remain static. No hyperbole is intended. I am only offering food for thought here, specifically, '... Chesterton pointed out about a century ago, is not always good. There is some virtue in retaining tradition, and yes Chesterton said that as well. Some of seek to retain some of our language's traditions if only to make the wisdom and the words of our earlier writers accessible. ...

Right, and my response to this food for thought was to say that this sounds hyperbolic, even if you aren't intending it. The only change we have been discussing here is the expansion of the use of the third person plural pronoun and, as has been pointed out by others, only in two narrow situations. Nothing is "lost," only gained. We'll, I suppose that patriarchy takes a bit of a slap, and binary gender purists. But neither of those are losses, for me.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[kazoolaw]

Thank you for the explanations. I was aware of the difference between the difference between the descriptive and proscriptive camps of grammar. It remains odd to me that the APA prefers to force a plural word into a singular hole to accommodate writers who are unable to structure a sentence to avoid he/she entirely.

[TSherbs]

No, I don't 'feel' you whatever that is supposed to mean.

I actually agree with what you are saying,...

So, you feel me. That's what the phrase means. I was making a (weak) point about language use and change. English actually has gained its strength from the degree to which it has been willing to change and absorb influences from around the world. I teach grammar; it is part of my daily professional existence. As this kind of "insider," I have come to see the history of this pursuit (the formalization of rules and standards) with suspicion: there has been a strong element academic, social, and professional elitism behind the push for standardization of language usage rules, in both speaking and writing. It's like the history of handwriting: there came a point when the upper middle class wanted access to elite status and thus embraced and codified things like grammar and penmanship in order to make clearer one of the doors of access to legitimacy. Humans do like to segregate and form hierarchies of value, don't we? In groups, out groups. The sophisticates and the rubes. Our rules go far beyond basic clarity of expression (especially in our speaking). These rules have other additional purposes, and I think that it is good to be wary of them.

And yes, this produces some cognitive dissonance for me in my job. But what else is new.

[Pterodactylus]

For me as non native speaker this is a very academic question (where I canˋt participate anyway).

But I‘m quite surprised that so many give a single little word so much attention to start a huge and passionate discussion. :ph34r:

Personally I donˋt think that I would have written a comment assuming the text would have been written in German (as I said I‘m not qualified for English).


Ok.... so now please feel free to fillet my insufficient English grammar. :dirol: (I‘m happy to entertain you :) )

[An old bloke]

No, I don't 'feel' you whatever that is supposed to mean.

I actually agree with what you are saying, and I am not suggesting that neither we nor our language remain static. No hyperbole is intended. I am only offering food for thought here, specifically, '... Chesterton pointed out about a century ago, is not always good. There is some virtue in retaining tradition, and yes Chesterton said that as well. Some of seek to retain some of our language's traditions if only to make the wisdom and the words of our earlier writers accessible. ...

Right, and my response to this food for thought was to say that this sounds hyperbolic, even if you aren't intending it. The only change we have been discussing here is the expansion of the use of the third person plural pronoun and, as has been pointed out by others, only in two narrow situations. Nothing is "lost," only gained. We'll, I suppose that patriarchy takes a bit of a slap, and binary gender purists. But neither of those are losses, for me.



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk



No, I don't 'feel' you whatever that is supposed to mean.

I actually agree with what you are saying,...

So, you feel me. That's what the phrase means. I was making a (weak) point about language use and change. English actually has gained its strength from the degree to which it has been willing to change and absorb influences from around the world. I teach grammar; it is part of my daily professional existence. As this kind of "insider," I have come to see the history of this pursuit (the formalization of rules and standards) with suspicion: there has been a strong element academic, social, and professional elitism behind the push for standardization of language usage rules, in both speaking and writing. It's like the history of handwriting: there came a point when the upper middle class wanted access to elite status and thus embraced and codified things like grammar and penmanship in order to make clearer one of the doors of access to legitimacy. Humans do like to segregate and form hierarchies of value, don't we? In groups, out groups. The sophisticates and the rubes. Our rules go far beyond basic clarity of expression (especially in our speaking). These rules have other additional purposes, and I think that it is good to be wary of them.

And yes, this produces some cognitive dissonance for me in my job. But what else is new.

Thank you both. This is exactly the kind of discussion I intended to foster. Encouraging discussion and the sharing of perspectives is something my father taught me. He encouraged open-mindedness and one being receptive to the opinions, knowledge, and perspectives of others, and that asking a question or making a statement that would require an explanatory answer or challenge was a good way to achieve dialogue. As he taught me, it is one way to learn.


So, shall we discuss the 'Oxford comma' ? Use it or lose it?

[Ole Juul]

... So, shall we discuss the 'Oxford comma' ? Use it or lose it?

Maybe another thread. :)

But while I'm here I'll say that it is logically wrong to omit it. Those who advocate or demand omitting it are deliberately sabotaging clear and proper English in order to satisfy their own irrational fetish.

[TSherbs]

... So, shall we discuss the 'Oxford comma' ? Use it or lose it?

Maybe another thread. :)

But while I'm here I'll say that it is logically wrong to omit it. Those who advocate or demand omitting it are deliberately sabotaging clear and proper English in order to satisfy their own irrational fetish.

What have you got against sabotage and/or fetishes? I can think of several poets and writers whose high art can be exactly described this way. Conventionality is mostly for the, well, conventional.

[silverlifter]

Omitting the serial comma only ever increases ambiguity. Far from being a pedant's fetish, it is a marker of clarity and precision.

[TSherbs]

Omitting the serial comma only ever increases ambiguity. Far from being a pedant's fetish, it is a marker of clarity and precision.And what is wrong with some ambiguity from time to time? Clarity also can be its own fetish, when adhered to with a fervor. This reminds me of the criticism of Monet when he would forgo traditional outlines of subjects.

The fact that it's called the Oxford Comma might clue us in to something.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Thank you for the explanations. I was aware of the difference between the difference between the descriptive and proscriptive camps of grammar. It remains odd to me that the APA prefers to force a plural word into a singular hole to accommodate writers who are unable to structure a sentence to avoid he/she entirely.


Rubbish. It is simple to structure a sentence to include he/she, but it is totally unnecessary under the guidelines given by APA, and it is quite obvious why this is so.


Note: APA does not state that he/she cannot be used, only that it is context driven rather than a slavish rule. Does this additional information (the he/she part) have any value? If I was writing a police report about an incident then it would be more pertinent to include he/she as it is relevant information, as an example.

[silverlifter]

Ambiguity when it is intentional is fine, ie., in creative writing. But generally, clarity is preferrable when you are communicating, or attempting to.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Oh, totally agree. It always disappoints me when a novelist, poet, artist, film maker etc, leaves nothing to the imagination. In my opinion, in the creative arts, engaging the imagination is key.


Ambiguity in the academic field (which is all I can really speak to) is usually - but not always - weeded out during peer review. Not a perfect system, but it works well enough.

[An old bloke]

Thank you for the explanations. I was aware of the difference between the difference between the descriptive and proscriptive camps of grammar. It remains odd to me that the APA prefers to force a plural word into a singular hole to accommodate writers who are unable to structure a sentence to avoid he/she entirely.


Rubbish. It is simple to structure a sentence to include he/she, but it is totally unnecessary under the guidelines given by APA, and it is quite obvious why this is so.


Note: APA does not state that he/she cannot be used, only that it is context driven rather than a slavish rule. Does this additional information (the he/she part) have any value? If I was writing a police report about an incident then it would be more pertinent to include he/she as it is relevant information, as an example.


Three thoughts:

First, I agree -- as I said earlier -- that 'they' allows for the non-binary, and is therefore more choice-worthy in our politically correct society while 'he/she' does not.

Second, and completely unrelated to earlier discussion, but, your comment, 'If I was writing a police report about an incident then it would be more pertinent to include he/she as it is relevant information, ...' Bring up the question of usage when demographics; gender especially, is being considered such as a research paper in which a individual is being discussed. That, I would think, becomes an either or choice.

Third, This is what happens when an abstract thinker with a MENSA IQ has spent too much time in self-isolation. He gets bored with his own company, gets on the internet, and annoys people with 'free range' drivel.

[Empty_of_Clouds]

:)

In a human research paper, demographic information should always be given. In population based studies participants are usually broken down along the usual axes of sex, age, ethnicity and so on. Firstly to describe the population, and secondly to help explain statistical comparisons if they are being made. Individuals are more likely to be referenced directly in case studies or qualitative research. That's obviously not an exhaustive list, just the more commonly seen study types - at least in my experience so far.


An academic writer should always consider what information needs to be conveyed, as opposed to trying to shoehorn everything in. Many journals impose word limits too, which may lead to some brutal editing!

[FredRydr]

I asked someone who is a long term member for their opinion on a post that I had read on here, I sent a private message. Their answer was they did not trust private message and they would not answer, they said that it was too easy to pass a message round, messages were not private.

This cannot be right surely, it does not say very much for people.
That person's reply likely has much to do with his or her own behavior on FPGeeks (e.g., passive aggressive) and how he sees himself perceived. As mentioned above, nothing is truly private, but over-the-top paranoia from another is not something you ought to embrace. Take the cue, don't interact with him and leave him be.

[Chemyst]

As mentioned above, nothing is truly private, but over-the-top paranoia from another is not something you ought to embrace. Take the cue, don't interact with him and leave him be.

Good all-weather advice.

[RobJohnson]

I asked someone who is a long term member for their opinion on a post that I had read on here, I sent a private message. Their answer was they did not trust private message and they would not answer, they said that it was too easy to pass a message round, messages were not private.

This cannot be right surely, it does not say very much for people.
That person's reply likely has much to do with his or her own behavior on FPGeeks (e.g., passive aggressive) and how he sees himself perceived. As mentioned above, nothing is truly private, but over-the-top paranoia from another is not something you ought to embrace. Take the cue, don't interact with him and leave him be.

Thank you, good advice.

By an odd coincidence, I used 'they' in the question, you have referred to the person as a man.

[TSherbs]

Ambiguity when it is intentional is fine, ie., in creative writing. But generally, clarity is preferrable when you are communicating, or attempting to.

Well, sure.

But there is no difference in "clarity" between these three statements:

1) Everyone can have a drink of water when he or she needs it.

2) Everyone can have a drink of water when they need it.

3) Each of you can have a drink of water when you need it.


There are some qualitative/contextual differences, but no difference in degree of "clarity."

[TSherbs]

...This is what happens when an abstract thinker with a MENSA IQ...

wait, someone on this thread? I just post the drivel without the genius part; intelligence not required. :tea:

[Johnny_S]

I asked someone who is a long term member for their opinion on a post that I had read on here, I sent a private message. Their answer was they did not trust private message and they would not answer, they said that it was too easy to pass a message round, messages were not private.

This cannot be right surely, it does not say very much for people.
That person's reply likely has much to do with his or her own behavior on FPGeeks (e.g., passive aggressive) and how he sees himself perceived. As mentioned above, nothing is truly private, but over-the-top paranoia from another is not something you ought to embrace. Take the cue, don't interact with him and leave him be.



That means there are no more than two people left.

[TSherbs]

Note: APA does not state that he/she cannot be used, only that it is context driven rather than a slavish rule. Does this additional information (the he/she part) have any value?.

Right. What also needs to be acknowledged is that the need, or the expectation, that one would have to rewrite a sentence in order to accommodate the lack of a third person singular gender neutral (or inclusive) pronoun that also applies to humans is exactly indicative of the problem. By simply adopting a gender neutral pronoun for humans, one can avoid this convoluted revision or the overly-formalized "he or she" constructions. Common sense change can have its place, too.

[silverlifter]

Ambiguity when it is intentional is fine, ie., in creative writing. But generally, clarity is preferrable when you are communicating, or attempting to.

Well, sure.

But there is no difference in "clarity" between these three statements:

1) Everyone can have a drink of water when he or she needs it.

2) Everyone can have a drink of water when they need it.

3) Each of you can have a drink of water when you need it.


There are some qualitative/contextual differences, but no difference in degree of "clarity."

None of those sentences contains a serial comma, which was the specific scope of my original comment.

[TSherbs]

Ambiguity when it is intentional is fine, ie., in creative writing. But generally, clarity is preferrable when you are communicating, or attempting to.

Well, sure.

But there is no difference in "clarity" between these three statements:

1) Everyone can have a drink of water when he or she needs it.

2) Everyone can have a drink of water when they need it.

3) Each of you can have a drink of water when you need it.


There are some qualitative/contextual differences, but no difference in degree of "clarity."

None of those sentences contains a serial comma, which was the specific scope of my original comment.

sorry, I thought that you were responding to the comment immediately above yours (about gender and pronouns)

[TSherbs]

Silver, then how about this example:

"I have three brothers: Henry, Frank and John."

Is there some sort of ambiguity or confusion here about the brothers' names?

[TSherbs]

Or this case:

"The colors of the US national flag are red, white and blue."

You see, one of the rules for commas is to use one in place of the word "and" when it is removed from a list, as in, "The colors of the flag are red and white and blue." The Oxford comma rule is actually an exception to this other rule: "except when the 'and' comes before the final item in the list: then both the comma and the 'and' are used." In several cases, this exception is unnecessary for clarity (see my examples above). More rules and/or exceptions is not very sensible, even contrary to logic.

[kazoolaw]

Silver, then how about this example:

"I have three brothers: Henry, Frank and John."

Is there some sort of ambiguity or confusion here about the brothers' names?

How about the classic "Eats shoots and leaves."
Pick a place to insert a single comma.
Is the result the same? Unambiguous?

[Ole Juul]

Silver, then how about this example:

"I have three brothers: Henry, Frank and John."

Is there some sort of ambiguity or confusion here about the brothers' names?

That's not a good example because you gave the number of items in the list. That adds a data point external to what's under discussion.

If you had said "my brothers are Henry, Frank and John", there would be ambiguity and you would be making an assumption unless you were 100% certain of the cultural context. Although unlikely, "Frank and John" would be a legal name in many countries.

Not putting commas in a list usually (perhaps always) involves making an assumption.

PS: Speaking of Frank, Frank Zappa named a daughter "Moon Unit". According to him her middle name is Unit.

[kazoolaw]

Rubbish. It is simple to structure a sentence to include he/she, but it is totally unnecessary under the guidelines given by APA, and it is quite obvious why this is so.

"Rubbish?" Fear not, I will not report you to the admin/mod whoever they are.

Did you mean "include?" I meant "exclude." I do agree that is simple to structure a sentence to avoid using "she" or "he." That comment was intended to draw attention to the folly of the APA, not make a judgment on the writing skills of the general population.

Maybe the issue is that I don't see what you say is the obvious need for changing a perfectly clear plural word to be singular.

[TSherbs]

Silver, then how about this example:

"I have three brothers: Henry, Frank and John."

Is there some sort of ambiguity or confusion here about the brothers' names?

That's not a good example because you gave the number of items in the list. That adds a data point external to what's under discussion....
.

"Rubbish". It IS a good example of how the Oxford comma is not ALWAYS necessary for clarity. That's the whole point of being flexible (and not absolutist) with the rule. I have not and would not claim that the Oxford comma is NEVER necessary. Absolutist claims, like those above, are not defensible in practice. There are clear, easy examples when that additional comma is superfluous for clarity (and I gave examples). I know of what I speak. It is my profession. I have to make these judgments daily (when school is in session).

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[TSherbs]

Silver, then how about this example:

"I have three brothers: Henry, Frank and John."

Is there some sort of ambiguity or confusion here about the brothers' names?

How about the classic "Eats shoots and leaves."
Pick a place to insert a single comma.
Is the result the same? Unambiguous?See above.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[Empty_of_Clouds]

Did you mean "include?" I meant "exclude." I do agree that is simple to structure a sentence to avoid using "she" or "he." That comment was intended to draw attention to the folly of the APA, not make a judgment on the writing skills of the general population.

Maybe the issue is that I don't see what you say is the obvious need for changing a perfectly clear plural word to be singular.

Whoops! I did indeed misread your statement in part.

However, I stand by what I said. It is not folly on the part of the APA, it is a perfectly sensible stylistic suggestion

You did make a judgement on the writing skills of others though.


Thank you for the explanations. I was aware of the difference between the difference between the descriptive and proscriptive camps of grammar. It remains odd to me that the APA prefers to force a plural word into a singular hole to accommodate writers who are unable to structure a sentence to avoid he/she entirely.

It is simple to construct a sentence excluding both he/she or they. In the context of human research it is not usual to write in a completely abstract fashion.

[RobJohnson]

Some people would say that the use of he or she in a sentence is not relevant and that language should move towards non gender based descriptions.

I would be interested to hear of whether this approach applies to other languages, and indeed cultures. For example, I have a colleague who is Japanese and he regards the perfect wife as someone who polishes his shoes on her knees as he walks out the door in the morning.

[Pterodactylus]

Some people would say that the use of he or she in a sentence is not relevant and that language should move towards non gender based descriptions.

I would be interested to hear of whether this approach applies to other languages, and indeed cultures. For example, I have a colleague who is Japanese and he regards the perfect wife as someone who polishes his shoes on her knees as he walks out the door in the morning.

You really know such a relict?
Incredible, I thought they are extinct since many centuries in the developed world, despite some rumors from time to time.

Such artifacts should be showcased in museums in special exhibitions about human male stupidity.

... or be shipped with a one way ticket to some Muslim fundamentalist dominated areas where they can live their medieval fetish dream.

[Johnny_S]

Some people would say that the use of he or she in a sentence is not relevant and that language should move towards non gender based descriptions.

I would be interested to hear of whether this approach applies to other languages, and indeed cultures. For example, I have a colleague who is Japanese and he regards the perfect wife as someone who polishes his shoes on her knees as he walks out the door in the morning.

You really know such a relict?
Incredible, I thought they are extinct since many centuries in the developed world, despite some rumors from time to time.

Such artifacts should be showcased in museums in special exhibitions about human male stupidity.

... or be shipped with a one way ticket to some Muslim fundamentalist dominated areas where they can live their medieval fetish dream.

Never read a post quite like that, not sure that I would want to read a post like that again.

[Chrissy]

Some people would say that the use of he or she in a sentence is not relevant and that language should move towards non gender based descriptions.

I would be interested to hear of whether this approach applies to other languages, and indeed cultures. For example, I have a colleague who is Japanese and he regards the perfect wife as someone who polishes his shoes on her knees as he walks out the door in the morning.
You're a new member so I'm going to say that in my humble opinion this post is drifting off topic into the more contentious area of Politics, Religion and Society (https://fpgeeks.com/forum/forumdisplay.php/48-Politics-Religion-and-Society) and that's not a route we like to travel down in The Lounge.

[Chemyst]

Some people would say that the use of he or she in a sentence is not relevant and that language should move towards non gender based descriptions.

I would be interested to hear of whether this approach applies to other languages, and indeed cultures. For example, I have a colleague who is Japanese and he regards the perfect wife as someone who polishes his shoes on her knees as he walks out the door in the morning.

You really know such a relict?
Incredible, I thought they are extinct since many centuries in the developed world, despite some rumors from time to time.

Such artifacts should be showcased in museums in special exhibitions about human male stupidity.

... or be shipped with a one way ticket to some Muslim fundamentalist dominated areas where they can live their medieval fetish dream.

Never read a post quite like that, not sure that I would want to read a post like that again.

Hence why the OP was initially concerned about their private thoughts being shared.

Full circle.

[Chrissy]

Some people would say that the use of he or she in a sentence is not relevant and that language should move towards non gender based descriptions.

I would be interested to hear of whether this approach applies to other languages, and indeed cultures. For example, I have a colleague who is Japanese and he regards the perfect wife as someone who polishes his shoes on her knees as he walks out the door in the morning.

You really know such a relict?
Incredible, I thought they are extinct since many centuries in the developed world, despite some rumors from time to time.

Such artifacts should be showcased in museums in special exhibitions about human male stupidity.

... or be shipped with a one way ticket to some Muslim fundamentalist dominated areas where they can live their medieval fetish dream.

Never read a post quite like that, not sure that I would want to read a post like that again.

Hence why the OP was initially concerned about their private thoughts being shared.

Full circle.
Chemyst, you highlighted exactly what happens when threads drift into the Politics, Religion and Society area.

[Chemyst]

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/wartime-envelope-from-uk-examined-by-censor-1941-picture-id1185903601?k=6&m=1185903601&s=170667a&w=0&h=RSy4CXneg9iOOYNTrXaUHzEDVPCR5_y1RNdDDQ7j_Hw=

[Empty_of_Clouds]

To return to the OP, and to summarise, privacy in correspondence is a function of the ethics of the participants.

[RobJohnson]

Yes I would agree with that, truth and honesty. I have thought that the point of a PM was because you wanted to say or ask something confidence that you did not want to seen by all, but if the recipient shares that information with others then ethics and integrity are minimal.

Trust no one and one day you may be surprised.

[Pterodactylus]

Some people would say that the use of he or she in a sentence is not relevant and that language should move towards non gender based descriptions.

I would be interested to hear of whether this approach applies to other languages, and indeed cultures. For example, I have a colleague who is Japanese and he regards the perfect wife as someone who polishes his shoes on her knees as he walks out the door in the morning.

You really know such a relict?
Incredible, I thought they are extinct since many centuries in the developed world, despite some rumors from time to time.

Such artifacts should be showcased in museums in special exhibitions about human male stupidity.

... or be shipped with a one way ticket to some Muslim fundamentalist dominated areas where they can live their medieval fetish dream.

Never read a post quite like that, not sure that I would want to read a post like that again.

And I’m not sure if I want to debate anything with people who think treating women like inventory or a personal property is tolerable.

[Johnny_S]

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/wartime-envelope-from-uk-examined-by-censor-1941-picture-id1185903601?k=6&m=1185903601&s=170667a&w=0&h=RSy4CXneg9iOOYNTrXaUHzEDVPCR5_y1RNdDDQ7j_Hw=

I am intrigued by your envelope Chemyst, being interested in postal ephemera, this is a letter mailed in 1941 in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England, a town I know very well, sent to North America by airmail and opened by a security service and resealed. Would you think that this private letter was opened by security in the US or prior to leaving England and do you know why there is no address and yet the envelope has been franked?

I take your point - there is no such thing as a truly Private Messages even by snail mail.

[TSherbs]

Some people would say that the use of he or she in a sentence is not relevant and that language should move towards non gender based descriptions.

I would be interested to hear of whether this approach applies to other languages, and indeed cultures. For example, I have a colleague who is Japanese and he regards the perfect wife as someone who polishes his shoes on her knees as he walks out the door in the morning.

That's kinkily specific.

"I've got a friend..."

[kazoolaw]

Silver, then how about this example:

"I have three brothers: Henry, Frank and John."

Is there some sort of ambiguity or confusion here about the brothers' names?

That's not a good example because you gave the number of items in the list. That adds a data point external to what's under discussion....
.

"Rubbish". It IS a good example of how the Oxford comma is not ALWAYS necessary for clarity. That's the whole point of being flexible (and not absolutist) with the rule. I have not and would not claim that the Oxford comma is NEVER necessary. Absolutist claims, like those above, are not defensible in practice. There are clear, easy examples when that additional comma is superfluous for clarity (and I gave examples). I know of what I speak. It is my profession. I have to make these judgments daily (when school is in session).

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

"Rubbish" quoted E o C's comment and wasn't directed to or at you.

I also have some experience with "models of clarity," having litigated throughout my career what various writers thought was perfectly clear. Including the dreaded "and/or."

[Ole Juul]

Silver, then how about this example:

"I have three brothers: Henry, Frank and John."

Is there some sort of ambiguity or confusion here about the brothers' names?

That's not a good example because you gave the number of items in the list. That adds a data point external to what's under discussion....
.

"Rubbish". It IS a good example of how the Oxford comma is not ALWAYS necessary for clarity. That's the whole point of being flexible (and not absolutist) with the rule. I have not and would not claim that the Oxford comma is NEVER necessary. Absolutist claims, like those above, are not defensible in practice. There are clear, easy examples when that additional comma is superfluous for clarity (and I gave examples). I know of what I speak. It is my profession. I have to make these judgments daily (when school is in session).

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

"Rubbish" quoted E o C's comment and wasn't directed to or at you.

I also have some experience with "models of clarity," having litigated throughout my career what various writers thought was perfectly clear. Including the dreaded "and/or."

I don't know who you are referring to as "you", but if it's me, I certainly wasn't offended. Because he (TS, I mean) was right. :)

In any case, there is something else to consider besides clarity, and that is how something reads. The example that TS gave, like most sentences without the comma, is somewhat jarring. Perhaps it's my mild autism, but I'm probably not the only one who is stopped in my tracks and irritated when I see such a sentence. Is the writer completely unconcerned about such an effect? Perhaps they're not sensitive to it. In any case, I don't like it, and subsequently choose to not do it myself.

[carlos.q]

To return to the OP, and to summarise, privacy in correspondence is a function of the ethics of the participants.

I would agree with this. Last year our island's governor had to resign because his "private" messages sent on an encrypted telephone app (Telegram) were divulged by one of the participants. The only difference was that the governor's messages were completely unethical, vulgar, mysoginistic, homophobic, and all around creepy awful. So I believe the ethical thing to do in that case was to make the "private" message public.

[An old bloke]

Silver, then how about this example:

"I have three brothers: Henry, Frank and John."

Is there some sort of ambiguity or confusion here about the brothers' names?

That's not a good example because you gave the number of items in the list. That adds a data point external to what's under discussion....
.

"Rubbish". It IS a good example of how the Oxford comma is not ALWAYS necessary for clarity. That's the whole point of being flexible (and not absolutist) with the rule. I have not and would not claim that the Oxford comma is NEVER necessary. Absolutist claims, like those above, are not defensible in practice. There are clear, easy examples when that additional comma is superfluous for clarity (and I gave examples). I know of what I speak. It is my profession. I have to make these judgments daily (when school is in session).

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

"Rubbish" quoted E o C's comment and wasn't directed to or at you.

I also have some experience with "models of clarity," having litigated throughout my career what various writers thought was perfectly clear. Including the dreaded "and/or."

I don't know who you are referring to as "you", but if it's me, I certainly wasn't offended. Because he (TS, I mean) was right. :)

In any case, there is something else to consider besides clarity, and that is how something reads. The example that TS gave, like most sentences without the comma, is somewhat jarring. Perhaps it's my mild autism, but I'm probably not the only one who is stopped in my tracks and irritated when I see such a sentence. Is the writer completely unconcerned about such an effect? Perhaps they're not sensitive to it. In any case, I don't like it, and subsequently choose to not do it myself.

This is a good question. There was a time, many decades ago when school age children were taught to write as they would speak. Punctuation, we were taught, was not only grammatical, but expressive. Commas for instance, were used to separate clauses, but also to 'meter' for expression by indicating a pause for emphasis. I don't know if this is what is being taught now, or if it has been in the last 50 years or so.

Our language and how it is used has changed -- and it will continue to evolve.

[An old bloke]

https://media.istockphoto.com/photos/wartime-envelope-from-uk-examined-by-censor-1941-picture-id1185903601?k=6&m=1185903601&s=170667a&w=0&h=RSy4CXneg9iOOYNTrXaUHzEDVPCR5_y1RNdDDQ7j_Hw=

I am intrigued by your envelope Chemyst, being interested in postal ephemera, this is a letter mailed in 1941 in Harpenden, Hertfordshire, England, a town I know very well, sent to North America by airmail and opened by a security service and resealed. Would you think that this private letter was opened by security in the US or prior to leaving England and do you know why there is no address and yet the envelope has been franked?

I take your point - there is no such thing as a truly Private Messages even by snail mail.

At a guess, it was most likely opened before it left England. The US was not in the war until December 1941 and had no need for wartime censorship security.

Coincidentally, My grandfather, a Sergeant in a Highland regiment served as a censor after he was severely wounded on the Somme in 1916. My sister and I have original copies of photos with 'Passed for publication' stamped over his signature.

[TSherbs]

. ....Commas for instance, were used to separate clauses, but also to 'meter' for expression by indicating a pause for emphasis. I don't know if this is what is being taught now, or if it has been in the last 50 years or so.

No, this is not a comma usage rule. Expressive pauses in speaking may come where a comma or other punctuation mark is, but one should not put a comma in to indicate a rhetorical pause. Punctuation use is based on logical syntactical relationships (nearly entirely) and not on emphasis in vocalization (except, of course, the exclamation point or question mark).



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

[An old bloke]

. ....Commas for instance, were used to separate clauses, but also to 'meter' for expression by indicating a pause for emphasis. I don't know if this is what is being taught now, or if it has been in the last 50 years or so.

No, this is not a comma usage rule. Expressive pauses in speaking may come where a comma or other punctuation mark is, but one should not put a comma in to indicate a rhetorical pause. Punctuation use is based on logical syntactical relationships (nearly entirely) and not on emphasis in vocalization (except, of course, the exclamation point or question mark).



Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk

No argument, and my comment referred to what was taught long ago time and in a far away place.

[silverlifter]

. ....Commas for instance, were used to separate clauses, but also to 'meter' for expression by indicating a pause for emphasis. I don't know if this is what is being taught now, or if it has been in the last 50 years or so.

No, this is not a comma usage rule. Expressive pauses in speaking may come where a comma or other punctuation mark is, but one should not put a comma in to indicate a rhetorical pause. Punctuation use is based on logical syntactical relationships (nearly entirely) and not on emphasis in vocalization (except, of course, the exclamation point or question mark).


Try telling that to a poet.

[Jon Szanto]

Try telling that to a poet.

The rules are moot if your artistic license is paid up.

[TSherbs]

. ....Commas for instance, were used to separate clauses, but also to 'meter' for expression by indicating a pause for emphasis. I don't know if this is what is being taught now, or if it has been in the last 50 years or so.

No, this is not a comma usage rule. Expressive pauses in speaking may come where a comma or other punctuation mark is, but one should not put a comma in to indicate a rhetorical pause. Punctuation use is based on logical syntactical relationships (nearly entirely) and not on emphasis in vocalization (except, of course, the exclamation point or question mark).


Try telling that to a poet.That's hilarious.

Sent from my Moto E (4) using Tapatalk