<DIV>Between a very long self-defense and very short general apology, Eduard Hanganu wrote: "It makes me sad to see how biased people can be, and how unfair. Is is (sic)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&nbsp; dialogue on this forum?"</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>It seems to me that Mr. Hanganu is unaware of how biased and unfair&nbsp;<STRONG><FONT face=verdana>he </FONT><EM>appears</EM></STRONG> to be in many of his own&nbsp;comments on this list. Perhaps a few examples might help him understand why we are all rushing to Johanna's well-deserved defense (and sometimes as well to our own defenses). As one who has&nbsp;felt personally insulted by Mr. Hanganu, perhaps I have a stake in presenting some of these examples, and perhaps I could begin by offering him the benefit that I suspect he is unaware of the insults!
  we feel
 and that he did not intend them to be insulting.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>Here are a few:</DIV>  <UL>  <LI>"Forgive me, but your perspective (and Craig's also) reflects the provincial attitude so common in this country among the English teachers and linguistists (sic)."</LI></UL>  <DIV>I've already responded personally (and I might add with good humor) to this. I still doubt the accuracy of calling me provincial; after all, Mr. Hanganu does not know me from Adam. I don't know, by the way, that there is any statistical evidence to support the claim that such provincialism is common among my colleagues or among American linguists generally. Also, I might point out that my previous response did not point out his constant misspelling of the word "linguists."</DIV>  <UL>  <LI>"Probably you don't know too much about the L'Academie Francaise, the Romanian Academy on Language, and other academic forums in Europe which have been regulating language (structure and use) for
 centuries."</LI></UL>  <DIV>My last response should have proven this hasty assumption to be a fallacy. I have some knowledge of the history of language, and I am well aware of the academies. My opinion of such academies, I admit, is not as high as Mr. Hanangu's opinion, but that is beside the point. The comment would have not been so insulting had the word 'probably' been replaced with 'perhaps',&nbsp;for he does not know what my education consists of. There's not enough space here to fill in that lack of information.</DIV>  <UL>  <LI>"The United States has practically no history compared with Europe. My country goes back TWO THOUSAND years, and most contries (sic) in Europe have as much history also."</LI></UL>  <DIV>Now this is a curious statement. I'm not sure what "no history" is intended to mean, but the chauvinism is so obvious in this statement (emphasized by the all capitals) that I'm surprised it did not jump out of the screen and smack Mr. Hanangu in the face. Doe!
 s he
 really think that he is better than&nbsp;me because his continent has an older history than my country? My ancestors go back to Europe and the Middle East. We have a history that's over four thousand years and spoke, in different eras of our history, English, Polish, Russian, Yiddish, Spanish, and Hebrew (and perhaps other languages, too). Does that mean I am better than he is? I would never make such a rude&nbsp;assumption.</DIV>  <UL>  <LI>"The idea that the 'native speaker knows more grammar than has ever <BR>been printed in any grammar books' is PURE NONSENSE."</LI></UL>  <DIV>The capitals again provide the insult. One can disagree with the concept, but here Mr. Hanangu clearly calls the holders of this idea (like perhaps&nbsp;Johanna Rubba, Herb Stahlke, Craig Hancock, [I'd add 'me', but I'm not in their linguistic league], ... ) nonsensical. Argue the merits of the idea, not the intelligence of the people who hold it. This is called an Ad Hominem fallacy.&nbsp;It's al!
 so
 insulting.</DIV>  <UL>  <LI>"I believe that a less provincial perspective, a better understanding about how other languages function will protect us from a narrow and much too confident notion that the way language is handled in the United States is the best way."</LI></UL>  <DIV>Although the words "I believe" help to soften this insult, there are three problems with this comment. first it suggest that the rest of&nbsp;have little understanding of the functions of languages; then that we&nbsp;are narrow minded and cocky.&nbsp;Finally, it assumes that we all believe that only citizens of the USA know how to "handle" language (whatever that means). Perhaps there are some of us who do think that way, but I would be hard pressed to know who they are from my near decade long involvement with the members of this assembly. Certainly, I am sure that I don't&nbsp;think that way. I never looked on linguistics as a nationalistic study. Who does? I would like to know.<BR></DIV>  <DIV>T!
 here are
 five example here from only a single posting by Mr. Hanangu. I would not be so rude as to try to match&nbsp;his 13 misrepresentations of Johanna's postings in his recent "apology." I'm sure I could find more, but I don't have the time or the interest right now. </DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>My one hope is that he see this not in the apparently paranoid fashion that I have inferred from his last posting, but in the spirit that it was intended: That is to return to thoughtful and civil discussion of the issues that we are all interested in. Remember the Greek origin of the term <EM>argument</EM> is<EM> clarification,</EM> not<EM> diatribe</EM>.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>Let's return to argument.</DIV>  <DIV>&nbsp;</DIV>  <DIV>Paul D.</DIV><BR><BR>"If this were play'd upon a stage now, I could condemn it as an improbable fiction" (_Twelfth Night_ 3.4.127-128).
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"
<p>
Visit ATEG's web site at http://ateg.org/