ADMIN: Suspension of Jefsey Morfin from ietf-languages
Harald Tveit Alvestrand
harald at alvestrand.no
Mon Nov 21 03:39:53 CET 2005
you are again sending material to this list that does not belong here; this
is a list for discussing language tags in the specific, not the general
principles underlying the update to RFC 3066.
In addition you are again misrepresenting people's positions and insulting
their motivation, their competence and their morals.
I'm suspending your posting privilleges to this list for another 30 days,
the maximum permitted under RFC 3934.
--On søndag, november 20, 2005 20:56:59 +0100 "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin"
<jefsey at jefsey.com> wrote:
> At 18:27 20/11/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>> JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:
>>> Some of my positions better described.
>> Crystal's book, reviewed in this Yemen Observer article, argues that
>> (1) languages other than English will remain important and must be
>> preserved, and (2) the importance of regional variants of English is
>> growing rapidly and must be recognized.
>> Surely no group has demonstrated a stronger commitment to promoting
>> the use of minority languages and regional variants of English over
>> the Internet, by encouraging their accurate identification, than
> Dear Doug,
> We agree on the effort, and on the probable motivations of most of the
> members of this group. However when the author says "Among the reasons
> set out by Crystal for the death of languages are natural disasters,
> cultural assimilation and homogenization, displacement or decimation of
> indigenous communities, and socio-economic pressures", I would add the
> technico-economic pressures.
> The ietf-languages group is by essence where these pressures can be
> applied or blocked, as far as the leading technology is concerned. My
> fear, coming for a part of the real world which is not the one of most in
> here, are the perverse effects which happens in _every_ human effort.
> These perverse effects (which are not investigated) would make this
> effort to help these pressures and would support technically and
> culturally unjustified political or technical doctrines.
> Doing a good job is a good thing. Doing a good job for an unethical
> cause, makes that job unethical and is a bad thing.
> Your own remark on "Guam" shows that you are not happy with the
> obligation to only respect RFC 3066. My position only goes a step further
> in term of security: I have no objection to _also_ support RFC 3066, I
> have no objection to even set-it up as a _default_. I have a very deep
> ethic concern at making it _exclusive_. This leads this group to twist
> reality and spoil a great and good job to _only_ match it. I have a
> practical deep problem in having no way to non-conflictingly match other
> needs in term of modes, tones, styles, mediums, dates, sociolinguistic or
> trade entities, etc. etc.
> In this I share the "red alert". What happened in Tunis, for example,
> just after the UNESCO GA where the mood was different, gives me the
> bitter feeling of a Monroe split - in addition to the perfectly
> understandable and acceptable technical, political, economical and
> societal positions of the various sides.
> The "red alert" is for this group to make sure that its work (which will
> greatly extend with RFC 3066 bis if applied) has ethical effects. This is
> the same kind of moral concerns as the people of the Manhattan Project
> had. And I think the impact on the people of the world - through their
> language and cultures - is of the same magnitude.
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages