Received-SPF: pass (google.com: best guess record for domain of kali9putra@yahoo.com designates 98.139.212.167 as permitted sender) client-ip=98.139.212.167;
Subject: Re: [lojban] Robin retry: commands.
References: <20130504201243.GE20411@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <51856E57.2010808@gmx.de> <20130504202515.GG20411@stodi.digitalkingdom.org> <CAHxnAm+NUxq=seQpKCgLT9Wmoouj4ypJMZeXBxNFDz3m3s8v_Q@mail.gmail.com> <55921D19-DB32-4D41-B6E9-1552B5BC9AB3@yahoo.com> <CAHxnAmKZTxe4Ps0H0WhVyY2k3WoiFi3=3zXsgRoW3EAg3jpJEw@mail.gmail.com> <3A8DBDCA-994A-4A20-9BAD-A3A4F3561B49@yahoo.com> <CAHxnAmLZ0WLPyTWqfLj=dsh+kBDcWdkh+qmrVnEJNs9mteoCZw@mail.gmail.com>
From: "John E. Clifford" <kali9putra@yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAHxnAmLZ0WLPyTWqfLj=dsh+kBDcWdkh+qmrVnEJNs9mteoCZw@mail.gmail.com>
Message-Id: <5F42DC95-D2C4-4B0D-B018-A4BC82AAFB06@yahoo.com>
Date: Sun, 5 May 2013 11:00:06 -0500
To: "lojban@googlegroups.com" <lojban@googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0 (1.0)
Reply-To: lojban@googlegroups.com
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list lojban@googlegroups.com; contact lojban+owners@googlegroups.com
Sender: lojban@googlegroups.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam_score: 1.0
X-Spam_score_int: 10
X-Spam_bar: +
X-Spam-Report: Spam detection software, running on the system "stodi.digitalkingdom.org", has
 identified this incoming email as possible spam.  The original message
 has been attached to this so you can view it (if it isn't spam) or label
 similar future email.  If you have any questions, see
 the administrator of that system for details.
 
 Content preview:  Well, yes, but only because the issuer of a command, even
   if totally lacking in self-confidence, etc., has the power to bring down evil
    upon you if you don't obey. Obeying is always optional but sometimes the
   consequences (perceived expected) of exercising that option are unacceptable.
    But the order given to a CO by a general is no less an order for the fact
    that the CO does not obey. Nothing matters here but grammatical form and
   power, though power may suggest certain modifications of form: a plea should
    not be peremptory surely nor (see Pinafore) a command too polite. [...] 
 
 Content analysis details:   (1.0 points, 5.0 required)
 
  pts rule name              description
 ---- ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------
  0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED          ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
                             See
                             http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
                              for more information.
                             [URIs: googlegroups.com]
  0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM          Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
                             (kali9putra[at]yahoo.com)
  0.0 DKIM_ADSP_CUSTOM_MED   No valid author signature, adsp_override is
                             CUSTOM_MED
  1.0 FORGED_YAHOO_RCVD      'From' yahoo.com does not match 'Received' headers
  0.1 DKIM_SIGNED            Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid
 -0.1 DKIM_VALID             Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature

Well, yes, but only because the issuer of a command, even if totally lackin=
g in self-confidence, etc., has the power to bring down evil upon you if yo=
u don't obey.  Obeying is always optional but sometimes the consequences (p=
erceived expected) of exercising that option are unacceptable.  But the ord=
er given to a CO by a general is no less an order for the fact that the CO =
does not obey.  Nothing matters here but grammatical form and power, though=
 power may suggest certain modifications of form: a plea should not be pere=
mptory surely nor (see Pinafore) a command too polite.

Sent from my iPad

On May 5, 2013, at 9:57, Betsemes <betsemes@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 10:09 AM, John E. Clifford <kali9putra@yahoo.com> =
wrote:
>> Oops! "orderer", not "ordered" (autocorrect kicks in at weird places). I=
n any case, the point is that the attitude of the one uttering the imperati=
ve has nothing to do with whether it is a command or not; that is an object=
ive power calculation (with some fine print, perhaps).  Similarly for reque=
sts and pleas.  Demands are somewhat different, but still not much about at=
titudes, etc.
>=20
> Okay, I see what you're saying which is mostly what I'm trying to say.
> The whole thread is dealing with attitudes; hauteur, constraint, etc.
> and to the extent of my knowledge, attitude is of little importance
> for a command to be a command. To me, self-confidence is key to a good
> commander and yet nobody was dealing with that. A command can be
> delivered in a relaxed manner too.
>=20
> My whole point is I think an attitudinal is not the way to go to mark
> a command as a command and not a request. But this is an opinion of
> mine. My personal take on this is that the difference between a
> command and a request is that carrying out a request is optional,
> carrying out a command is a requirement.
>=20
> --=20
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups=
 "lojban" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an=
 email to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
>=20
>=20

--=20
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "=
lojban" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to lojban+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to lojban@googlegroups.com.
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/lojban?hl=3Den.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.