SC - questions

[david friedman]

At 1:47 AM -0400 6/15/00, CBlackwill at aol.com wrote:
>In a message dated 6/14/00 8:13:15 PM Pacific Daylight Time, LrdRas at aol.com
>writes:
>
>  > Actually, it is certain members who would rather compromise period
>practices
>  >  with more convenient forms and who go out of their way to convince
>newcomers
>  >
>  >  that it is all right to do so that cannot be trusted.
>  >
>
>Ouch!  However, it _is_ "allright" to do so.  If this were a job, or a duty,
>or a prison sentence, then it may _not_ be "allright" to decide your own
>level of participation, and encourage others to decide theirs.


You seem to be using "all right" as "this is something you can do 
without deserving punishment" Why?

Suppose someone asked you whether to read a book. You happen to think 
the book is dreadful. Do you say "It's all right to read that book?" 
Wouldn't it be more useful to say "I don't think you should read that 
book--it is dreadfully written and boring." It doesn't follow that 
you think he should be compelled not to read the book.

But every time someone says the equivalent for period cooking--"you 
ought not to serve out of period food because it makes events feel 
less period," or "you ought to cook from period recipes because it is 
fun, interesting, and educational," you treat the statement as if it 
were a command rather than advice.

David/Cariadoc
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/