Date: Wed, 13 Sep 1995 15:55:46 MST From: Tom Uharriet Subject: Re: FOR English Only Gregory J. Pulliam writes: > Tom, > Why have you STILL not responded to Terry's points? I have responded to many of Terry's points. I never attempted to respond to everything Terry said. Though I am flattered that you would want me to. Some of those "points" were simply too absurd to deserve a response. Others didn't elicit a response because I agreed with them and had nothing to add. In spite of Terry's harsh words toward me, not everything in those messages was emotional dribble. A lot of it was valid. I have never intentionally given the message that this issue is entirely a black and white one. There are good reasons on both sides. Both sides have poor ones too. I have not always favored EOL. I still have many reasons for opposing it. I have not argued that way because the reasons I have for supporting it weigh heavier in me than my reasons against it. Most of us ADS-L subcribers would weigh it heavier the other way. That's okay. I do appreciate the messages, open and private, that have been supportive. But it's been fun going the rounds with the rest of you too. > Why are you so eager > to latch on to her anger . . . ? His "anger" was hard to resist. Being told to get the F*** off the network caught my attention--as he intended. I don't recommend this method, but it did work for him. > Most of us celebrate diversity, Good! I certainly do. That's why in spite of my EOL position, I would feel a loss to our country if we ever lost Chinatown and the many other non-English communities. Our nation is much richer because of them. Of course, well written EOL would not hinder preserving those centers of ethnic variety. It merely gives those people added incentive to aquire English as a second or third language. Even if they knew English (as many of them already do), they would still be who they are. But this leads us back to what I have already explained. > to come online and start talking about "national unity" and other > such notions is by nature inflammatory. You missed the point completely. To the extent that we truly do celebrate our diversity, we are united. I do not suggest that anyone loses his/her native language. I do, however, believe that everyone can benefit by learning a second language. For those whose native tongue is English, I cannot recommend any particular language over any other. Again, the more variety the better. But for those who do not speak English, who live in most parts of the world, I certainly recommend that they learn English. It is rapidly becoming the international language of commerce and technology. In our country, if they do not understand English, with or without EOL, they are missing out on too much of what this nation has to offer. > There are forums for people interested in language issues in > general to exchange ideas. Yes, that's why I'm in this circle. Until last month, I have not contributed very often because my views did not differ enough to really contribute much. I did not subscribe for political reasons. If my views radically oppose yours, you are welcome. I'm glad I could stimulate some thought in you. If your intention is to tell the network that you support Terry's messages, so be it. So do I in a large measure. Some of our exchanges have been too hostile for this forum. But at the heart of it all, we are not far apart. His professional background in language far surpasses my own. He has my respect. I am glad that he has yours as well. Whether we agree with his position or not, whether we agree with his tactics or not, whether we've been comfortable with his messages or not, he has done a lot to stir some thought on this issue. With his background and his zeal, he has a lot to add to this group. He and I have communicated outside of this forum; and he really is a decent guy. Thanks anyway, but you really don't need to excuse, explain, or defend his words. We both enjoy a good argument now and then. This issue gave us that opprotunity. Thanks, Tom Uharriet utom[AT SYMBOL GOES HERE]