Chan's comments may have been disputed, criticized, refuted - or any of another of many appropriate words - but the were not "rebuked."
One recognizes (formerly 'recognises') that words change in both spelling and meaning. Yet, at any given moment in time, a word has a generally accepted meaning. "Rebuked" does not convey what one takes to be the intended meaning of this writer.
If one expects to have one's arguments seriously considered, one should take the trouble to use the correct words to convey one's meaning. If someone cannot be troubled to express their{1} argument using the correct words, I admit that my psychological makeup is such that, a priori, I will have more trouble accepting the conclusions of that argument.
I do myself dispute Chan's remarks.
There is no question that ours is an extremely corrupt country; however, there is also no question that we do not evidence the same degree of systemic corruption as do Russia, India and - yes - China.
However I would not presume to rebuke him.
{1} I will go to the mat on this increasingly common epicene usage of "their" as singular.
"His" leaves out approximately one-half of humanity. "His or Her" or the inverse "Her or His," and the many contractions of this, and the various proposed neologisms to replace the grammatical "he/his" fall not lightly on the ear.
After all, such usage was good enough for Bill:
There's not a man I meet but doth salute me
As if I were their well-acquainted friend
- The Comedy of Errors, Act IV, Scene 3
Edit history
Recommendations
0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):
= new reply since forum marked as read