Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Re: [Czechlist] Re: using first name in contemporary U.S.

Expand Messages
  • James Kirchner
    But, of course, they are both from the malicious mischief side . Jamie ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    Message 1 of 29 , Dec 25 7:23 AM
      But, of course, they are both from the "malicious mischief side".

      Jamie

      On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Kostas wrote:

      > I also agree with this observation. And also: these two are on the very opposite sides of the game. She, as a member of the mass media community, is on the "information filtering side". He is on the "information unfiltering side".:-) Maybe that's where her distance toward him comes from.
      >
      > K.
      >
      > --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, "Liz Spacilova" <spacils@...> wrote:
      > >
      > > Martin, that was exactly my impression from the video. She was quite hostile, and he responded with kindness.
      > >
      > > --- In Czechlist@yahoogroups.com, Martin Janda <mjanda@> wrote:
      > > >
      > > > Well, then it might fit nicely together. Couric applies the cold
      > > > shoulder approach, and Assange retaliates with calling her her first
      > > > name in the every other sentence.
      > > >
      > > > Martin
      > > >
      > > > Dne 22.12.2010 18:40, James Kirchner napsal(a):
      > > > > I would say it was probably to show distance. She doesn't address
      > > > > everybody that way.
      > > > >
      > > > > Jamie
      > > > >
      > > > > On Dec 22, 2010, at 12:27 PM, Martin Janda wrote:
      > > > >
      > > > > > Perhaps a different cultural background might play a role? The guy is an
      > > > > > Aussie, right?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Also, if it's OK to use first names, why did Couric consistently address
      > > > > > him with the family name? To show a distance?
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Martin
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Dne 22.12.2010 18:09, James Kirchner napsal(a):
      > > > > >> Well, calling her by her first name is a completely separate issue
      > > > > from overusing her name.
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> I agree that it is inadvisable to use someone's first name over and
      > > > > over again in a conversation. However, rather than sounding arrogant or
      > > > > glib, it makes a person sound more as if he's taken a Dale Carnegie
      > > > > course and is repeating it either to make himself remember it, or to
      > > > > ingratiate himself to the other person.
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> Jamie
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> On Dec 22, 2010, at 11:53 AM, Charles Stanford wrote:
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>> Why does he have to repeat her name 3 times? I don't see any need
      > > > > to use her
      > > > > >>> name at all. We all know he is talking to her and to my mind it is just
      > > > > >>> trying to create a sense of false intimacy which is completely out
      > > > > of place
      > > > > >>> in an interview for the radio or TV. Even in a fireside chat it
      > > > > would be a
      > > > > >>> bit artificial. I reckon there is a one-time limit before you
      > > > > breach the
      > > > > >>> pain in the arse/smug/overly familiar/irritating/glib threshold -
      > > > > and I do
      > > > > >>> agree with Jennifer that it sounds arrogant to some extent (just to
      > > > > get the
      > > > > >>> ball rolling Jamie!!). There is a generation gap and "Julian"
      > > > > presumably
      > > > > >>> does not know "Katie" from Adam - so only the most painfully polished
      > > > > >>> politician would keep on flogging the life out of her first name.
      > > > > Sticking
      > > > > >>> her first name in 3 times in a 30 second interview to my mind is a
      > > > > pain in
      > > > > >>> the Assange. If your 70 yr-old university professor offered you use
      > > > > of first
      > > > > >>> name terms Jamie/Mr. Kirchner, then I am sure you would use it
      > > > > sparingly and
      > > > > >>> not rub in to him/anyone else that you were on first terms with/on
      > > > > the same
      > > > > >>> level as that professor. What if Bill Clinton said "Call me Bill"?
      > > > > Again
      > > > > >>> tactfulnes and modesty dictate that you would not start adding Bill
      > > > > on the
      > > > > >>> end of every other sentence. To my mind using someone's first name
      > > > > more than
      > > > > >>> once in a British context (and I bet in the US as well to some
      > > > > extent) is
      > > > > >>> either overly chummy or obsequious, especially if you do not know
      > > > > them and
      > > > > >>> that other person is calling you by your surname. Reminds me of
      > > > > John Major
      > > > > >>> getting interviewed, when he said "Please call me John" and the
      > > > > >>> interviewer, Max Hastings I think, said "I will call you Prime
      > > > > Minister, not
      > > > > >>> out of respect for you but out of respect for your position". Our
      > > > > >>> neighbour's best friend insists on calling me Richie in every single
      > > > > >>> sentence she directs at me - which is both artificial-sounding and
      > > > > annoying
      > > > > >>> (it's not my name...!) and makes me think that she is just
      > > > > repeating it all
      > > > > >>> the time so that she does not forget it. So yes, Assange is following
      > > > > >>> standard practice but no that does not make it any less glib,
      > > > > irritating
      > > > > >>> and, yes, to some extent arrogant. OK, the production staff have
      > > > > told him to
      > > > > >>> call her Katie... - does he really need to actually call her
      > > > > anything at
      > > > > >>> all? We know who she is don't we? He won't be getting any of my
      > > > > secrets.
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>> On 22 December 2010 16:49, Milos Prudek<info@
      > > > > <mailto:info%40prudek.com>> wrote:
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>> On Wednesday, December 22, 2010 04:29:57 pm you wrote:
      > > > > >>>>> In the second place, in the US, radio and TV show hosts are
      > > > > ALWAYS called
      > > > > >>>>> by their first names by guests and callers.
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>> This is what I suspected.
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>> Thank you for a detailed and very interesting explanation, Mr.
      > > > > Kirchner
      > > > > >>>> :-)
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>> --
      > > > > >>>> Milos Prudek
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>> ------------------------------------
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>> Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> ------------------------------------
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >> Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >>
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > ------------------------------------
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > > >
      > > > >
      > > > >
      > > >
      > >
      >
      >



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Josef Hlavac
      I suppose that your of course should actually read in my own personal view . Josef ... _______________________________________________ Czechlist mailing
      Message 2 of 29 , Dec 25 11:11 AM
        I suppose that your "of course" should actually read "in my own personal
        view".

        Josef

        On 25.12.2010 16:23, James Kirchner wrote:
        > But, of course, they are both from the "malicious mischief side".
        >
        > Jamie
        >
        > On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Kostas wrote:
        >
        >> I also agree with this observation. And also: these two are on the very opposite sides of the game. She, as a member of the mass media community, is on the "information filtering side". He is on the "information unfiltering side".:-) Maybe that's where her distance toward him comes from.
        >>
        >> K.

        _______________________________________________
        Czechlist mailing list
        Czechlist@...
        http://www.czechlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/czechlist
      • James Kirchner
        It meant that they are both in the business of revealing confidential facts without regard as to whose life it puts in danger. The difference is that Assange
        Message 3 of 29 , Dec 25 7:14 PM
          It meant that they are both in the business of revealing confidential facts without regard as to whose life it puts in danger.

          The difference is that Assange simply seems to pass on genuine documentation and let people make their own assumptions about it.

          The CBS Evening News (Couric's show), on the other hand, has a history of using documents that they know to be fraudulent for the purpose of character assassination.

          Both do this for the purpose of undermining the US government in various ways, and both are relatively thoughtless as to the bigger picture and the damage they may do. From what I can tell, though, Assange's mischief is honest, while CBS's mischief frequently involves dishonesty.

          Jamie

          On Dec 25, 2010, at 2:11 PM, Josef Hlavac wrote:

          > I suppose that your "of course" should actually read "in my own personal
          > view".
          >
          > Josef
          >
          > On 25.12.2010 16:23, James Kirchner wrote:
          > > But, of course, they are both from the "malicious mischief side".
          > >
          > > Jamie
          > >
          > > On Dec 25, 2010, at 10:15 AM, Kostas wrote:
          > >
          > >> I also agree with this observation. And also: these two are on the very opposite sides of the game. She, as a member of the mass media community, is on the "information filtering side". He is on the "information unfiltering side".:-) Maybe that's where her distance toward him comes from.
          > >>
          > >> K.
          >
          > _______________________________________________
          > Czechlist mailing list
          > Czechlist@...
          > http://www.czechlist.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/czechlist
          >



          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • James Kirchner
          Back to the matter of how people address each other in media interviews, here is an exchange I heard today on the radio show of a commentator named Dennis
          Message 4 of 29 , Dec 25 7:25 PM
            Back to the matter of how people address each other in media interviews, here is an exchange I heard today on the radio show of a commentator named Dennis Prager. I may not have the exact wording perfect, but this is essentially how the interview started:

            Prager: "Well, Bruce -- if I can call you Bruce...
            Guest: "I prefer to be called Mr. Herschensohn. Do you mind if I call you Dennis?"
            Prager: "Yes, go right ahead."

            Of course, the whole thing was a joke, and they were just satirizing the conventions of interviewers and guests on TV or the radio. They then proceeded to call each other by first names, "Dennis" and "Bruce", throughout the interview. When a listener would call with a question, the joke about calling the guest "Mr. Herschensohn" would come back up, everyone would laugh again, and the guest also contributed to the humor.

            Mr. Herschensohn was actually a big shot professor at a well-known university, talking about a very serious subject, but as is typical, he didn't mind being called by his first name by the host or by callers.

            Jamie
          • Pilucha, Jiri
            Hi, Would you please explain to me in plain language the last part: ** xxx ** The Parties hereby acknowledge that damages may not be an adequate remedy for any
            Message 5 of 29 , Dec 28 2:13 PM
              Hi,

              Would you please explain to me in plain language the last part: ** xxx **

              The Parties hereby acknowledge that damages may not be an adequate remedy for any breach of this clause 9 and that either Party will therefore be entitled to apply for injunctive relief from any court of competent jurisdiction **without the requirement to post bond to restrain any breach or threatened breach of this clause 9**

              Thank you very much

              Jiri
            • James Kirchner
              They don t need to pay kauce to prevent themselves from violating clause 9. Bond here is kauce . Jamie ... [Non-text portions of this message have been
              Message 6 of 29 , Dec 28 2:17 PM
                They don't need to pay "kauce" to prevent themselves from violating clause 9.

                "Bond" here is "kauce".

                Jamie

                On Dec 28, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Pilucha, Jiri wrote:

                > Hi,
                >
                > Would you please explain to me in plain language the last part: ** xxx **
                >
                > The Parties hereby acknowledge that damages may not be an adequate remedy for any breach of this clause 9 and that either Party will therefore be entitled to apply for injunctive relief from any court of competent jurisdiction **without the requirement to post bond to restrain any breach or threatened breach of this clause 9**
                >
                > Thank you very much
                >
                > Jiri
                >



                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • Michael A. Trittipo
                ... More accurately, neither needs to pay for a kauce _TO GET AN INJUNCTION AGAINST THE OTHER_ when it claims that the OTHER IS violating clause 9. The
                Message 7 of 29 , Dec 28 6:32 PM
                  On 12/28/2010 4:17 PM, James Kirchner wrote:
                  > They don't need to pay "kauce" to prevent themselves from violating
                  > clause 9.

                  On Dec 28, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Pilucha, Jiri wrote:
                  >> Would you please explain to me in plain language the last part: **
                  >> xxx ** The Parties hereby acknowledge that damages may not be an
                  >> adequate remedy for any breach of this clause 9 and that either
                  >> Party will therefore be entitled to apply for injunctive relief
                  >> from any court of competent jurisdiction **without the requirement
                  >> to post bond to restrain any breach or threatened breach of this
                  >> clause 9**

                  More accurately, neither needs to pay for a kauce _TO GET AN INJUNCTION
                  AGAINST THE OTHER_ when it claims that the OTHER IS violating clause 9.
                  The ordinary rule in most American courts is that someone who wants an
                  injunction has to put up a guarantee (buy a bond) to pay any damages
                  that the person who is enjoined may suffer if the injunction turns out
                  to have issued wrongfully. That's Rule 65 in most jurisdictions, like
                  http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule65.htm, part (c).

                  Jiri, the sentence's logic may be more clear if re-ordered to put the
                  "to restrain ... clause 9" BEFORE the word "without" and after the word
                  "relief" as follows (and slightly abridged for clarity):

                  "Either Party [can] apply for injunctive relief to restrain any breach
                  or threatened breach of this clause 9, without having to post bond in
                  order to get the injunction."

                  I'd rephrase Jamie's explanation in typewriter-redlining form as
                  > <+Neither+> <-They don't-> need<+s+> to pay "kauce" to <+get a court
                  > order to+> prevent <-themselves-> <+the other+> from violating . . ..


                  Yours having obtained (and prevented the obtaining of) many, many
                  injunctions from state and federal courts, sometimes having to pay for
                  an injunction bond, sometimes not having had to.
                • Pilucha, Jiri
                  Michael and Jamie, thank you so much Jiri ________________________________ From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of
                  Message 8 of 29 , Dec 29 9:35 AM
                    Michael and Jamie, thank you so much
                    Jiri

                    ________________________________
                    From: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com [mailto:Czechlist@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Michael A. Trittipo
                    Sent: Wednesday, December 29, 2010 3:32 AM
                    To: Czechlist@yahoogroups.com
                    Subject: Re: [Czechlist] to post bond....



                    On 12/28/2010 4:17 PM, James Kirchner wrote:
                    > They don't need to pay "kauce" to prevent themselves from violating
                    > clause 9.

                    On Dec 28, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Pilucha, Jiri wrote:
                    >> Would you please explain to me in plain language the last part: **
                    >> xxx ** The Parties hereby acknowledge that damages may not be an
                    >> adequate remedy for any breach of this clause 9 and that either
                    >> Party will therefore be entitled to apply for injunctive relief
                    >> from any court of competent jurisdiction **without the requirement
                    >> to post bond to restrain any breach or threatened breach of this
                    >> clause 9**

                    More accurately, neither needs to pay for a kauce _TO GET AN INJUNCTION
                    AGAINST THE OTHER_ when it claims that the OTHER IS violating clause 9.
                    The ordinary rule in most American courts is that someone who wants an
                    injunction has to put up a guarantee (buy a bond) to pay any damages
                    that the person who is enjoined may suffer if the injunction turns out
                    to have issued wrongfully. That's Rule 65 in most jurisdictions, like
                    http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule65.htm, part (c).

                    Jiri, the sentence's logic may be more clear if re-ordered to put the
                    "to restrain ... clause 9" BEFORE the word "without" and after the word
                    "relief" as follows (and slightly abridged for clarity):

                    "Either Party [can] apply for injunctive relief to restrain any breach
                    or threatened breach of this clause 9, without having to post bond in
                    order to get the injunction."

                    I'd rephrase Jamie's explanation in typewriter-redlining form as
                    > <+Neither+> <-They don't-> need<+s+> to pay "kauce" to <+get a court
                    > order to+> prevent <-themselves-> <+the other+> from violating . . ..

                    Yours having obtained (and prevented the obtaining of) many, many
                    injunctions from state and federal courts, sometimes having to pay for
                    an injunction bond, sometimes not having had to.



                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • James Kirchner
                    Michael, this is really useful. Thank you! Jamie ... [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Message 9 of 29 , Dec 29 9:54 AM
                      Michael, this is really useful. Thank you!

                      Jamie

                      On Dec 28, 2010, at 9:32 PM, Michael A. Trittipo wrote:

                      > On 12/28/2010 4:17 PM, James Kirchner wrote:
                      > > They don't need to pay "kauce" to prevent themselves from violating
                      > > clause 9.
                      >
                      > On Dec 28, 2010, at 5:13 PM, Pilucha, Jiri wrote:
                      > >> Would you please explain to me in plain language the last part: **
                      > >> xxx ** The Parties hereby acknowledge that damages may not be an
                      > >> adequate remedy for any breach of this clause 9 and that either
                      > >> Party will therefore be entitled to apply for injunctive relief
                      > >> from any court of competent jurisdiction **without the requirement
                      > >> to post bond to restrain any breach or threatened breach of this
                      > >> clause 9**
                      >
                      > More accurately, neither needs to pay for a kauce _TO GET AN INJUNCTION
                      > AGAINST THE OTHER_ when it claims that the OTHER IS violating clause 9.
                      > The ordinary rule in most American courts is that someone who wants an
                      > injunction has to put up a guarantee (buy a bond) to pay any damages
                      > that the person who is enjoined may suffer if the injunction turns out
                      > to have issued wrongfully. That's Rule 65 in most jurisdictions, like
                      > http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/frcp/Rule65.htm, part (c).
                      >
                      > Jiri, the sentence's logic may be more clear if re-ordered to put the
                      > "to restrain ... clause 9" BEFORE the word "without" and after the word
                      > "relief" as follows (and slightly abridged for clarity):
                      >
                      > "Either Party [can] apply for injunctive relief to restrain any breach
                      > or threatened breach of this clause 9, without having to post bond in
                      > order to get the injunction."
                      >
                      > I'd rephrase Jamie's explanation in typewriter-redlining form as
                      > > <+Neither+> <-They don't-> need<+s+> to pay "kauce" to <+get a court
                      > > order to+> prevent <-themselves-> <+the other+> from violating . . ..
                      >
                      > Yours having obtained (and prevented the obtaining of) many, many
                      > injunctions from state and federal courts, sometimes having to pay for
                      > an injunction bond, sometimes not having had to.
                      >
                      >



                      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.