Drew (and all others who have attacked me lately):


I don’t think I am being treated in a fair manner. If you and others 
turn back to Johanna Rubba’s message and read it *very carefully,*  
you will see that she has insulted me at least a *dozen* times, 
*distorted* my statements, *ridiculed* my knowledge of linguistics, 
and *accused* me of actually ignoring what she claims to be factual 
evidence concerning some theories which have never been substantiated.

It is my impression that most of those who opened my e-mail did not 
bother to give my statements due attention. I was a foreigner.I was  
making *weird* affirmations, and I did not know what I was talking 
about. What a pity I don't have an Arabic background. Then I could 
even be labeled a terrorist. 

Nobody seems to have noticed that since I came to this forum I have 
been insulted again and again in different ways - subtle and direct. 
Someone talked about the *prescriptive affliction* from which foreign 
speakers suffer, someone told me that my analysis of a sencence 
reminded him of his foreign students who read into the English text 
what is not there. Recently, some people have taken my statement that 
Johanna Rubba was a *mere instructor* as a general statement which 
included all those on the forum. This is a sad distortion of my 
words. I was directly referring to her, and not to all the people on 
this forum. But let's turn our attention now to Johanna Rubba's 
message.

Johanna Rubba made the following accuzations on my behalf:

1.To treat baseless claims about language as legitimate opinions is 
harmful and misleading to those listers who haven't had the 
opportunity to study language deeply. 

So, I was harming and misleading listeners on the forum.

2. It's just plain rude to call the findings (note I do not 
say "beliefs") of lifelong scholars of language NONSENSE. Putting the 
words in caps is not exactly diplomatic.

Which were the "findings" she is talking about? She provides no 
evidence to contradict my statents.

3.Eduard's ethnocentrism is obvious, and his claims about language and
linguistics are spurious.

I am "ethnocentric," and my claims about language are "spurious." 
What is the factual evidence that contradicts my assertions.

4. It's about time he realized that he is in dialogue with scholars, 
like Herb Stahlke.

How does she know that I did not "realize" that Herb Stahkle is a 
scholar?

5. Eduard is speaking anecdotally from his own experience.

What an accuzation ! She is the only one knowledgeable in language. I 
speak only "anecdotically." How does she know this? 

6. [Eduard is ] drawing in studies that are irrelevant to how
much speakers _subconsciously_ know about their language. 

As above, she makes some gratuitous assumptions concerning what I 
am "drawing" from when I make my statements. Does she know what I 
read? Does she recognize that there are linguistist of world fame who 
do not agree with Chomsky's Universal Grammar theories and with 
Pinker's "Language instinct"? How about the cognitive linguists?

7. I'd also like to ask him how far he has read into either book (the 
Quirk et al. grammar of English and the newer Huddleston and Pullum).

I own both books, and I have read rather far in both of them. What 
does a scholar's perspective prove? Could it be equalled with facts?

8. The fact that he appeals to institutions like the Academie 
Française (yes, a few of us know about it) proves his 
misunderstanding of sociolinguistics and the history of
how such institutions arise in stratified societies.

The fact that Johanna Rubba accuses me of "misunderstanding of 
sociolinguistics" shows that she does not understand the European 
cultures. I have done extensive studies in the way European academies 
regulate languages, and I lived in a country which has been 
regulating language for a couple of hundred years. I know what it 
means, and how it works. Does she know?

9. Those who believe in such institutions have a serious 
misunderstanding of how language works. 

Really? Again, this is just an empty relativist statement so common 
among language "experts" in this country. Many world scholars 
disagree with her. What makes her think that her understanding of 
language is the right one?

10. America has a history going back at least TEN THOUSAND years of 
indigenous languages that are as complex and beautiful as a particle 
accelerator.

Here she distorts my statement concerning the history if *this 
nation*, that is, the American nation. My affirmation was clear. I 
was speaking about the history of the English language in this 
country,and not about the North American languages before the 
*genocide.*

11. The history of literacy and scholarship of a culture has nothing 
to do with the quality or expressive potential of its language.

I am sure you are all familiar with *fallacies.* One of the most 
common fallacies is *generalization.* To claim that "literacy and 
scholarship" has "nothing to do with the quality or expressive 
potential of its language,"  is blatantly wrong. The English language 
has developed and enriched through its writings and scholarship.

12. They also choose, often for purely political reasons, to
ignore the wisdom of those who study language for a living. Too many 
of them have Eduard's understanding of language.

Here I am thrown in with those in this country who "ignore the wisdom 
of those who study language for a living," and who have "Eduard's 
understanding of language." I find this statement *offensive in the 
extreme.* What is my "understanding of languge"? Could she be more 
arrogant and derogatory than with such a statement? She seems to 
accept no other perspective than her own opinion.

13. As a result, millions of children are essentially thrown into the 
garbage bin -- prison, permanent low-wage jobs, low standards of 
living, poor health care, the list goes on and on. 

So, my understanding of language is the reason why "millions of 
children are thrown into the garbage bin." Beyond belief!

************

I will stop here with the analysis of Johanna Rubba's false 
accuzations and insults against me. I counted THIRTEEN assumptions, 
accuzations and offenses that she commited against me in a message 
posted on a list about which she claims: 

"This list is intended for civilized discussion. It is of no benefit 
to make baseless claims and insult whole populations. It is not in the
spirit of the list to be rude."

I believe that her own behavior contradicts and invalidates the 
claims she makes. I don't think I have *ever*written a message on 
this forum in which I concentrated *thirteen* insults against an 
individual on the forum. 

She seems, though, to realize that she went far beyond decency when 
she states:

"I realize that I may have crossed that line myself in this message, 
but perhaps the same tone is needed to bring the point home."

I would say that her affirmation is at least strange: Respond to 
insult with insult? This seems very unlike the way an educator would 
behave. If I have been rude and insulting, is this the way to teach 
me to behave? Insult me back? Is this how she is treating her 
students? 

Johanna Rubba chooses to conclude her message with another insult, 
that is number *fourteen*:

"Or perhaps Eduard is like far too many people engaging in "debate" 
today under the guise of "fair and balanced" public discussion, who 
simply will never admit that they are wrong about something no matter 
how many facts you throw at them." 

This time I am accused of *obtusity* and refusal to accept that I am 
*wrong* when I am confronted with the *facts." May I ask: What are 
the facts in her message? As I said, all I see in her e-mail is an 
emotional *diatribe* lacking any evidence or suportive statements. 
Maybe Dr. Rubba needs to take a class in *argument,* and understand 
the difference between "claims" and "facts"?


It makes me sad to see how biased people can be, and how unfair. Is 
is possible that out of 250 people on this mail list nobody has seen 
how *rude* and *offensive* Johanna Rubba has been towards me under 
the false pretense of promoting fairness, decency, and civilized 
dialogue on this forum? 

No matter what she did to me, I will honestly and sincerely APOLOGIZE 
to all members of this forum for all the offense and inconvenience I 
have caused to them. I did not mean it. I have simply expressed my 
opinions on different matters, like most people who post, and did not 
realize that I was too passionate in my opinions for the social 
context of this forum.

Again, the deepest and most sincere apologies to all!

Eduard 

To join or leave this LISTSERV list, please visit the list's web interface at:
     http://listserv.muohio.edu/archives/ateg.html
and select "Join or leave the list"

Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/