Text 17500, 136 rader
Skriven 2005-12-02 17:00:02 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 17487 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
Ärende: Name-Calling
====================
Hello Scheidt,

 >>> Are you a stand-up comic by profession Mr. Vlist,

 MVDV>>> The name is _van_der_ Vlist.  If you must use my family name, please
 MVDV>>> use it correctly.
 >
 >> OK ... I wasn't aware that the "van der" was part of your surname.

 MVDV>> Hmmm for someone claiming to be an expert on Europe, you are pretty
 MVDV>> ignorant.

 > Oh?  Where did I make such a claim???

Over the last couple of weeks you have made that claim at leadt half a dozen
times. Scroll back a couple of hundred messages and you will surely see it
somewhere. You have obviously forgotten about it. I can forgive you for that.
You must be at least two decades my senior, old enough to be my father. My
father got a bit forgetful too in the end.

 MVDV>> European surnames basicall go into three catagories:

 MVDV>> 1) Derived from a profession: Smit (smith), Bakker (baker)

 MVDV>> 2) Derived from the name of the father: Karlson (Son of Karl) Janson,
 MVDV>> Jansen, (Son of Jan)

 MVDV>> 3) Derived from a place: van der Vlist: from, or of, Vlist.

 > All well-known ... [sigh] ...

Yet you did not know that the "van der" is an integral part of my surname....


 MVDV>> The derivation is signaled by "van", "van de" or "van der" in Dutch.
 MVDV>> In German by "von". In French "de". In French however, just like in
 MVDV>> English the prefixes are sometimes concatenated with the name itself.
 MVDV>> We have a Joe Delahaye here. That derives from "de la Haye" or "from
 MVDV>> The Hague". I believe "Vanderbilt" is a well known name in the US. The

 > In the U.S. we have largely given up such affectations.

"affectations"? Now what is that supposed to mean? It is simply part of my
name, I didn't choose it, I just got it.

 > The only people who use such titles are people

It is not a title and save for going through an official name change procedure
= which is expensive and a lot of hassle - I do not have the choice of using it
or not. It is the name under which I am known in this country. I had no say in
the matter.

 > who want some kind of publicity, movie actors, for example.
 > Your "Vanderbilt" example is one way they are treated -- either
 > ignored or combined with the "last" last name.

You would not get away with that here. If only for the very prosaic reason that
no one could do bussiness with me if he/she were not to use my proper name. Try
to get a bill collected adressed to "M. Vlist".....

 MVDV>> Other than that: Referring to someone by his last name in thge
 MVDV>> examples you gave (the news) is perfectly all right here as well. It is
 MVDV>> not all right however to address someone with his last name only. In
 MVDV>> earlier days that from was used to address an underling, nowadays it is
 MVDV>> considered patronising. If one is not on a first name basis, one
 MVDV>> prefixes he name with Mr. or Dr. or whatever title is appropriate.

 > European customs are different than American customs. That's
 > all you're saying.  Using last names as a form of address is
 > common here.  It has no special significance.

Really?

So you don't mind at all that I started this reply to you with a "Hello
Scheidt" at the top?

 MVDV>> OTOH, it is also considered mildly insulting here to adress
 MVDV>> someone as "Mr." in a group if the group's customs and mores
 MVDV>> are that all members are on a first name basis.

 > I think American speech is a bit more subtle than is European
 > speech WRT "Mr."

Your ignorence with respect to European customs is showing again...

 > If I had intended an insult it would have been obvious.

I am not so sure about that. I think you are smart enough to launch a /not so
obvious/ insult....

 > As should have been apparent I've avoided any insulting or
 > flaming here though I'm pretty experienced in the use of both

You have avoided *obvious* flaming or name calling, yes...

 > ... heh heh heh ... I tend to do it only defensively ...

In self defence. Yeah,m that excuse...

 >> Huh?  You say, and I quote:  "It also explains why so many
 >> Americans believe the US won WWII."  That says you think the
 >> US *lost* WWII.  Strange!

 MVDV>> Only in your binary way of thinking.

 > Whatever *that* means ... [sigh] ...

It means that you only think in black and white. For you their can only be two
shaded, black and white. In reality their ares shades of grey.

 MVDV>> War is not a football game where there are just two parties and where
 MVDV>> in the end there is always exactly one winner and exactly one loser.

 > WRT WWII one side won; one side lost.

There is that binary thinking again....

 MVDV>> In real wars there are third parties that contributed but
 MVDV>> that by themselves neither lost nor won. Or that are part
 MVDV>> of the winning team, but that are not the winners as such.

 > Certainly Germany lost *more* than Italy lost but that doesn't
 > change what you implied, i.e., that America did *not* win.

I did not imply anything, I merely stated a fact: The USA did not win, The
coalition that the US joined in the second half of WWII did. They would have
won without the USA.

 > ... Confidence occurs when you are ignorant of the facts.

Stop looking in that Mirror Scheidt, you need to get out more.

Cheers, Michiel

---
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)