Post Reply
Page 16 of 19  •  Prev 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
6 years ago  ::  Aug 22, 2008 - 6:11PM #151
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303
A (genuine!) thank you for the explanation of the "sorry", L.Ann and Jim.
This is the type of tiny discrepancies in culture that one needs to be aware of.

May I add a question as follow-up? It's this:

I've often observed Americans here in these discussions telling each other things beginning with the words
"I hate to burst your bubble, but...", typically followed by what the writer considers to be a refutation of the
addressed person's stance.

Also here (and more strongly so), I always had this same feeling of listening to a dishonest person,
thinking "He says he hates it, but in fact he loves it to make that statement..."

My question: is this also such a case of "completely normal talk," sarcasm-free,
and not passing love for hate? Or is this indeed what I suppose it to be?

As I said, to me, the use of such elements typically causes doubts about the speaker's honesty...
The use of "bubble" for the discussion partner's stance seems to convey a lack of respect for this discussion partner (apparently a guy suffering from "bubbles"), and the use of "I hate to tell you" seems at odds
with such a low regard. If they really hated it, they'd not write "bubble" in the first place,
in my opinion...

Thanks in advance for any explanation here!

It's too late here now for me to give a more in-depth reply to your posts, for which I also thank you. Let's just say, especially after your last message, Jim, I begin to see a modicum of merit in your support of Georgia. NOT in the political stance of Rice, mind you...

More later -- now's bedtime :-)
tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 23, 2008 - 9:47AM #152
L.Ann
Posts: 501
Char......I'm not ignoring your questions, just wanted to say that words sometimes define a person's attitude and should be carefully selected not to personally offend.  The net (cyberspace) has a way of providing a protective shield for things to be said that are not respectful to one's viewpoint and condesend others.  In person, viewpoints  may be stated differently due to real-presence....(or, not stated, since no one would listen to their viewpoint? lol)

[QUOTE=L.Ann;709179]Adding:  Russia's form of communism expressed in Georgia directly affects not only the economy;  but also rules Political, Social and Cultural life that has been well noted by their actions by civilian displacement (ethnic cleansing), economic strategic points of occupation (sea ports, main road routes, and major cities),  Integration of Russian  loyals into Georgia's main cities;  staging social gathering of Orchastra for S.Ossetians with own reporters shipped in and P.R. campaign included in honoring the 133 proven dead, though stated 2,000;  And. the re-positioning of  cultural materialism and  non-cultural relativism in theory for society....[/QUOTE]

Found this interesting:

MSNBC-Aug. 23, 2008
"Russia won't leave key city port of Poti in Georgia."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26361173/
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 23, 2008 - 11:51AM #153
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485
[QUOTE=CharikIeia;710168]A (genuine!) thank you for the explanation of the "sorry", L.Ann and Jim.
This is the type of tiny discrepancies in culture that one needs to be aware of.

May I add a question as follow-up? It's this:

I've often observed Americans here in these discussions telling each other things beginning with the words
"I hate to burst your bubble, but...", typically followed by what the writer considers to be a refutation of the
addressed person's stance.

Also here (and more strongly so), I always had this same feeling of listening to a dishonest person,
thinking "He says he hates it, but in fact he loves it to make that statement..."

My question: is this also such a case of "completely normal talk," sarcasm-free,
and not passing love for hate? Or is this indeed what I suppose it to be?

As I said, to me, the use of such elements typically causes doubts about the speaker's honesty...
The use of "bubble" for the discussion partner's stance seems to convey a lack of respect for this discussion partner (apparently a guy suffering from "bubbles"), and the use of "I hate to tell you" seems at odds
with such a low regard. If they really hated it, they'd not write "bubble" in the first place,
in my opinion...

Thanks in advance for any explanation here!

It's too late here now for me to give a more in-depth reply to your posts, for which I also thank you. Let's just say, especially after your last message, Jim, I begin to see a modicum of merit in your support of Georgia. NOT in the political stance of Rice, mind you...

More later -- now's bedtime :-)[/QUOTE]

Char;

First, you can't really break down a statement like: "I hate to burst your bubble, but...".  As L.Ann explained, it is a common expression that has evolved within a certain cultural setting and is understood in that environment while it is frustrating to non-native speakers of the language.  The word 'hate' in that expression is obviously a gross exageration and is not meant to be understood literally.  But it essentially means; 'I wish I didn't have to do this but I must disagree with you or correct your error'.  The 'error' simply means that the speaker has a different opinion or is basing their position on different information that they give more credibility than they do the information the other person is basing their opinion on.

The word 'bubble', I assume, refers to the soap bubbles we played with as children.  One child blows a really impressive bubble and another runs over and 'burst' it.  Sometimes a similar expression refers to popping a ballon.  'Bubble' here should not be confused with 'bubble head' which is much less common and I assume is meant to imply that the person is 'empty-headed'.

Again, the expression stated more literally would be along the lines of; 'I'm really sorry I have to disagree with you but here is why I don't accept what you are saying.'  A more 'adult' form of the expression is; 'I hate to have to disabuse you of your belief but here is why you are wrong.'  In any case it is a way of leading into a polite rejection of something another person has said.  In a truly hostile situation, the speaker would not bother with this 'nicety'.  Keep in mind that one reason for using 'colloquialisms' is to convey to the other person that there is culturally a common ground between them and that they are, in spite of their difference on the matter being discussed, are still members of a common group.

There are two problems here; 1) a difference in how we learned the language we are communicating in and 2) we are reading each others ideas rather than conveying them face to face where body language would help in conveying our meaning and our sincerity.

Peace, Jim

PS: I have had people take real offense at my "peace" which is similar to the Arab "peace be upon you" (Salaam al lekum) and is meant to convey a friendly, non-hostile disposition toward the other person.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 23, 2008 - 11:57AM #154
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485
[QUOTE=L.Ann;711390]Char......I'm not ignoring your questions, just wanted to say that words sometimes define a person's attitude and should be carefully selected not to personally offend.  The net (cyberspace) has a way of providing a protective shield for things to be said that are not respectful to one's viewpoint and condesend others.  In person, viewpoints  may be stated differently due to real-presence....(or, not stated, since no one would listen to their viewpoint? lol)



Found this interesting:

MSNBC-Aug. 23, 2008
"Russia won't leave key city port of Poti in Georgia."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26361173/[/QUOTE]

One very disturbing thing about the picture that accompanies the above link is the blue helmets.  The Russians are characterizing the invasion and, hopefully, temporary occupation of another country as a peace keeping operation.  Yet their troops are far from the area of the original conflict and they are not there under the supervision of any international body.

Jim
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 23, 2008 - 9:47AM #155
L.Ann
Posts: 501
Char......I'm not ignoring your questions, just wanted to say that words sometimes define a person's attitude and should be carefully selected not to personally offend.  The net (cyberspace) has a way of providing a protective shield for things to be said that are not respectful to one's viewpoint and condesend others.  In person, viewpoints  may be stated differently due to real-presence....(or, not stated, since no one would listen to their viewpoint? lol)

[QUOTE=L.Ann;709179]Adding:  Russia's form of communism expressed in Georgia directly affects not only the economy;  but also rules Political, Social and Cultural life that has been well noted by their actions by civilian displacement (ethnic cleansing), economic strategic points of occupation (sea ports, main road routes, and major cities),  Integration of Russian  loyals into Georgia's main cities;  staging social gathering of Orchastra for S.Ossetians with own reporters shipped in and P.R. campaign included in honoring the 133 proven dead, though stated 2,000;  And. the re-positioning of  cultural materialism and  non-cultural relativism in theory for society....[/QUOTE]

Found this interesting:

MSNBC-Aug. 23, 2008
"Russia won't leave key city port of Poti in Georgia."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26361173/
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 23, 2008 - 11:51AM #156
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485
[QUOTE=CharikIeia;710168]A (genuine!) thank you for the explanation of the "sorry", L.Ann and Jim.
This is the type of tiny discrepancies in culture that one needs to be aware of.

May I add a question as follow-up? It's this:

I've often observed Americans here in these discussions telling each other things beginning with the words
"I hate to burst your bubble, but...", typically followed by what the writer considers to be a refutation of the
addressed person's stance.

Also here (and more strongly so), I always had this same feeling of listening to a dishonest person,
thinking "He says he hates it, but in fact he loves it to make that statement..."

My question: is this also such a case of "completely normal talk," sarcasm-free,
and not passing love for hate? Or is this indeed what I suppose it to be?

As I said, to me, the use of such elements typically causes doubts about the speaker's honesty...
The use of "bubble" for the discussion partner's stance seems to convey a lack of respect for this discussion partner (apparently a guy suffering from "bubbles"), and the use of "I hate to tell you" seems at odds
with such a low regard. If they really hated it, they'd not write "bubble" in the first place,
in my opinion...

Thanks in advance for any explanation here!

It's too late here now for me to give a more in-depth reply to your posts, for which I also thank you. Let's just say, especially after your last message, Jim, I begin to see a modicum of merit in your support of Georgia. NOT in the political stance of Rice, mind you...

More later -- now's bedtime :-)[/QUOTE]

Char;

First, you can't really break down a statement like: "I hate to burst your bubble, but...".  As L.Ann explained, it is a common expression that has evolved within a certain cultural setting and is understood in that environment while it is frustrating to non-native speakers of the language.  The word 'hate' in that expression is obviously a gross exageration and is not meant to be understood literally.  But it essentially means; 'I wish I didn't have to do this but I must disagree with you or correct your error'.  The 'error' simply means that the speaker has a different opinion or is basing their position on different information that they give more credibility than they do the information the other person is basing their opinion on.

The word 'bubble', I assume, refers to the soap bubbles we played with as children.  One child blows a really impressive bubble and another runs over and 'burst' it.  Sometimes a similar expression refers to popping a ballon.  'Bubble' here should not be confused with 'bubble head' which is much less common and I assume is meant to imply that the person is 'empty-headed'.

Again, the expression stated more literally would be along the lines of; 'I'm really sorry I have to disagree with you but here is why I don't accept what you are saying.'  A more 'adult' form of the expression is; 'I hate to have to disabuse you of your belief but here is why you are wrong.'  In any case it is a way of leading into a polite rejection of something another person has said.  In a truly hostile situation, the speaker would not bother with this 'nicety'.  Keep in mind that one reason for using 'colloquialisms' is to convey to the other person that there is culturally a common ground between them and that they are, in spite of their difference on the matter being discussed, are still members of a common group.

There are two problems here; 1) a difference in how we learned the language we are communicating in and 2) we are reading each others ideas rather than conveying them face to face where body language would help in conveying our meaning and our sincerity.

Peace, Jim

PS: I have had people take real offense at my "peace" which is similar to the Arab "peace be upon you" (Salaam al lekum) and is meant to convey a friendly, non-hostile disposition toward the other person.
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 23, 2008 - 11:57AM #157
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485
[QUOTE=L.Ann;711390]Char......I'm not ignoring your questions, just wanted to say that words sometimes define a person's attitude and should be carefully selected not to personally offend.  The net (cyberspace) has a way of providing a protective shield for things to be said that are not respectful to one's viewpoint and condesend others.  In person, viewpoints  may be stated differently due to real-presence....(or, not stated, since no one would listen to their viewpoint? lol)



Found this interesting:

MSNBC-Aug. 23, 2008
"Russia won't leave key city port of Poti in Georgia."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26361173/[/QUOTE]

One very disturbing thing about the picture that accompanies the above link is the blue helmets.  The Russians are characterizing the invasion and, hopefully, temporary occupation of another country as a peace keeping operation.  Yet their troops are far from the area of the original conflict and they are not there under the supervision of any international body.

Jim
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 23, 2008 - 11:44PM #158
L.Ann
Posts: 501
[QUOTE=Jstanl;711666]One very disturbing thing about the picture that accompanies the above link is the blue helmets.  The Russians are characterizing the invasion and, hopefully, temporary occupation of another country as a peace keeping operation.  Yet their troops are far from the area of the original conflict and they are not there under the supervision of any international body.

Jim[/QUOTE]

Yes Jim, I also noted this 'image' for the world.  It appears that the Russians are not co-operating with the international community and show such 'disrespect' to the Georgians.  I found more information regarding their refusal to move from the port of Poti (outside of the territorial boundary) per the agreement.  They have risen Russian and Commonwealth of Independent States flags.  I think everyone knows why Russia is still in Georgia and appears to be strategically  'inching' it's way  into Georgia.  The concern is not only Georiga, but also  other sovereignty's who choose to remain in their status.    Russia has made public  'it's most agressive foreign policy' to the world - Unity of Ex-Soviet States....
Who is going to get tossed?

AP-MSNBC- Sat., Aug. 23, 2008

POTI, Georgia - Thousands of Georgians angry at the presence of Russian troops on the outskirts of the strategic Black Sea port of Poti took to the streets Saturday, waving Georgian flags and urging the Russians to leave.
The protest came as a top Russian general said his country’s forces would keep patrolling Poti even though it lies outside the areas where Russia claims it has the right to station soldiers in Georgia.

“Russian military: You are not a liberating military, you are an occupying force,” one man was heard shouting.

'Security zones'
On Saturday, Russian troops were taking positions in trenches they had dug near a bridge that provides the only access to Poti. Tanks and APCs were parked nearby. They had hoisted both Russian flags and the flag of the Commonwealth of Independent States, or CIS, the union of former Soviet republics that Georgia recently announced it had left. Emotions ran high, though direct confrontation was avoided.   

“They have the CIS flag, and that flag is not our Georgian flag,” said one protester, Sulkhan Tolordava. “Georgia is not a member of this organization, so the troops must leave very quickly,” he said.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26361173
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 25, 2008 - 10:59AM #159
CharikIeia
Posts: 8,303
[QUOTE=L.Ann;713074]“They have the CIS flag, and that flag is not our Georgian flag,” said one protester, Sulkhan Tolordava. “Georgia is not a member of this organization, so the troops must leave very quickly,” he said.[/QUOTE]
Indeed, since this very year, Georgia is not anymore a member of the Commonwealth of Independent States.

Which does not change the fact that the CIS peacekeeping mission, staffed by Russia, was implemented when Georgia still was member of this organisation -- so, while troops must leave Poti and the Georgian mainland, and quickly so, there is no doubt about the legitimacy of these troops in Abchasia and South Ossetia.

- -

Just to reiterate a fact that Saakashvili-fans love to forget:
this war was started by an attack of the Georgian army on Tskhinvali.
Everything ensuing must be viewed against this background.

The unilateral blaming of Russia is not worthy of much attention,
as it reveals a partisan viewpoint, not one of genuine interest in the situation.

- -

I had problems accessing this site for the past days, need to catch up -- maybe in the evening..
tl;dr
Quick Reply
Cancel
6 years ago  ::  Aug 25, 2008 - 11:32AM #160
Jstanl
Posts: 5,485
A Georgian protester in Poti, (AP-MSNBC- Sat., Aug. 23, 2008);

[QUOTE]“Russian military: You are not a liberating military, you are an occupying force,” one man was heard shouting.[/QUOTE]

Spin it anyway you like, that tells the story.

Jim
Quick Reply
Cancel
Page 16 of 19  •  Prev 1 ... 14 15 16 17 18 19 Next
 
    Viewing this thread :: 0 registered and 1 guest
    No registered users viewing
    Advertisement

    Beliefnet On Facebook