erinja:

Polaris:2. Yes, if someone went around using "ci" all the time, the rest of us would wonder what he was trying to prove because, to put it nicely, it would seem eccentric....but so what? We see a lot of odd, quirky things that barely register a blip on the radar screen; how is this any different?

The individual in question finds it offensive for people to point out that persistent use of "ci" may be considered as odd, quirky, and eccentric by others (I have been yelled at before for expressing such an opinion), so please be prepared for the person in question to get upset at you for mentioning this. The individual in question seems to think we are all liars because we use "vi" in the singular, as Zamenhof intended for the language. I guess Zamenhof must be a liar in his own language? Or I guess some individuals must simply speak an "esperantido" in which everything is the same as Esperanto except the pronouns, and in this Esperantido, "vi" is plural only (rather than Esperanto's plural plus singular) and "ci" is singular. One wonders of the point of making this Esperantido since it only adds a pronoun without any real point, but there's not accounting for taste.

again with the mockery (not to mention the putting of words not said into another's mouth). Such a nice example for all the non-administrators here.

erinja:

Polaris: you said you'd find it offensive for someone to say "ci" to you rather than "vi"---and I wanted to sort that out a little. Orthohawk's singular/plural forms discussion aside, what would you find offensive about somebody referring to you as "ci"?

I believe people have a fundamental right to be referred to by their preferred pronoun.

My right to practice my religion as I see fit is right there in the 1st amendment. Which amendment covers this supposed right to be called how we wish to be called?

erinja:My pronoun is "vi". I think it's disrespectful to call a person by a different pronoun than what they've explicitly asked to be called.

Is it not just as disrespectful to mock someone for following what they understand to be the will of God? Apparently the admin does not think it is.

erinja: It indicates a fundamental disrespect for the person's wishes,

No less a fundamental disrespect for a person's choice in how to practice his religion. At least my right is written in the constitution

erinja: insisting that their crippled Esperanto is correct (and seemingly, from this discussion, that everyone else is flat out wrong by using "vi"???),

Must have missed this little gem.

No. "ci" is a correct form. It is in the fundamento and is defined as the 2nd person singular pronoun. That is how I use it. How in the name of all that is holy can a fundamenta form used as defined IN the Fundamento be incorrect?!?!?!!!?

There's reaching and then there's this nonsense. All any of you have to do is let those of us to wish to use "ci" do so, and if you don't like it, the solution is very simple. DON'T. TALK. TO. US.

(oh, and before anyone spews any bull pucky about saving those poor little newbies from us EEEEEEEEEEVIL "ci-istoj", all that needs to be said, is "That usage is very rare in "standard" Esperanto, and is not something to be emulated without a very specific reason" and THAT IS THAT. No mockery is needed, neither is any character assassination, accusations of "weirdness" or disingenuousness, or any other kind of rude comments).

Perhaps it's not your intention, but you come across as bellicose and confrontational at this point - in this thread and elsewhere.

It's a little ironic that you complain that other people get offended too easily, and then in turn get offended yourself - in an exaggerated manner - when people point out that your language use is highly nonstandard.

Might I suggest everyone take a break from this conversation? This surely isn't a good use of either your or your interlocutors' time. Arguing with strangers on the Internet for this long rarely does anything productive

(P.S. - Free speech laws, very happily, do not apply to privately-operated websites.)

Tempodivalse:Perhaps it's not your intention, but you come across as bellicose and confrontational at this point - in this thread and elsewhere.

people in glass houses should not throw stones.

Tempodivalse:It's a little ironic that you complain that other people get offended too easily, and then in turn get offended yourself when people point out that your language use is highly nonstandard.

STOP WITH THE LIES. That is NOT why I'm offended and thee DAMN well knows it.

Tempodivalse:(P.S. - Free speech laws, very happily, do not apply to privately-operated websites.)

so, some laws apply to the private sector but not others? sounds like an double standard to me. Cherry picking, anyone?

erinja:Don't go around pretending like this is normal speech in front of people who are still trying to learn normal Esperanto.

and here's the slander/libel.
I challenge anyone to find any post in which I ever claim to say that the use of "ci" is "normal" speech.

It won't be found because I never said it. In short the above cited statement is an out-and-out lie. Now, who's being disrespectful?

Vestitor:^ Blimey, overthinking it a little?

Not at all. How does thee refer to King Willem? "His Majesty"? I bet not.

Tempodivalse:Eh - Just talk like Bill Owen if you want a familiar pronoun.

(*Rubber Ducky tune*) Nora Batty, tha's the one ... tha makes my life sooo much funnn....

Why on earth would I honor my ancestors by speaking Cockney when there were not Cockneys? They were Quakers, thus my use of Plain Speech.

so, some laws apply to the private sector but not others? sounds like an double standard to me. Cherry picking, anyone?

Free speech, in Western law, is concerned almost entirely with public forums ("forum" in the broad, non-internet sense of the term).

The owners (administrators) of a private website such as Lernu! are well within their rights to redact user content at their discretion.

I've seen no comment addressed to you which could plausibly constitute libel.

Since you don't seem to care for my advice to disengage - well, I guess there's nothing more for me to do here. Just trying to save everyone a little trouble.

Tempodivalse:

so, some laws apply to the private sector but not others? sounds like an double standard to me. Cherry picking, anyone?

Free speech, in Western law, is concerned almost entirely with public forums ("forum" in the broad, non-internet sense of the term).

The owners (administrators) of a private website such as Lernu! are well within their rights to redact user content at their discretion.

Yes and a business owner who runs a business not owned by the government is a PRIVATE business.

Before thee spews any bull about "it's the law" let me remind that slavery was also "the law" at one time...........as was murdering Jews, Gypsies and homosexuals (and with the latter, still IS the law in some places).