Text 17589, 193 rader
Skriven 2005-12-03 11:37:00 av FRANK SCHEIDT (1:123/140)
     Kommentar till en text av MICHIEL VAN DER VLIST
Ärende: Name-Calling
====================
-=> Quoting Michiel Van Der Vlist to Frank Scheidt <=-

 MVDV> Hello Scheidt,

Hello ...
 
 >>> 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???

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

I doubt very much that I *ever* said I'm "an expert on Europe".  
I know how I speak and that wouldn't be included for *two* 
reasons:  (1) I'm *not* an expert on Europe, and (2) if I *were* 
I'd simply keep it to myself -- and impress you ...

 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] ...

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

There are people here named, for example, John William James 
Smith.  He would typically go by "John Smith" leaving out the 
William James ... I presumed "van der" would be used similarly.

 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.

 MVDV> "affectations"? Now what is that supposed to mean? It is simply part
 MVDV> of my name, I didn't choose it, I just got it.
 
If a person here was named "von Bruchstein", for example, he'd 
often ignor the "von" part, mainly because it would have no 
meaning here while it *did* mean something to people in Germany 
when he was living there.

 > The only people who use such titles are people

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

Here, as long as it's not being used in the commision of some 
crime, one can change his name without even applying for a 
"license".  It's usually not done because it can become too 
complicated for the person changing his name, depending upon how 
many years of history he has behind him.  *I*, for example, could 
immediatly start using the name "Michiel van der Vlist" as my 
own, without even a need to "register" it. Also there would be no
legal problems -- aside from the fact that I'd have to go through 
a lot of trouble informing people, making sure the name-change 
was on all of my accounts, driver's license, etc.  Don't worry 
though, as I have no intention of doing that.   ... heh heh heh 
...

 > 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.

 MVDV> You would not get away with that here. If only for the very prosaic
 MVDV> reason that no one could do bussiness with me if he/she were not to use
 MVDV> 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.

 MVDV> Really?

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

Of course not.  Why *should* I??  That's my name and it's spelled 
correctly so do as you wish.  

 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."

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

OK ... after all, I'm no *expert* on European customs ...
 
 > If I had intended an insult it would have been obvious.

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

Maybe you're just being very, very sensitive ...
 
 > As should have been apparent I've avoided any insulting or
 > flaming here though I'm pretty experienced in the use of both

 MVDV> You have avoided *obvious* flaming or name calling, yes...
 
 > ... heh heh heh ... I tend to do it only defensively ...

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

It's not an "excuse"; it's a *reason* ...
 
 >> 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] ...

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

So Germany only lost the war "somewhat"???

 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.

 MVDV> There is that binary thinking again....

Good for me!

 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.

 MVDV> I did not imply anything, I merely stated a fact: The USA did not win,

I guess all the history books, as well as all the newspapers of 
the WWII era, all of my memories are false then ... [sigh] ... 
BTW, you'll really irritate a lot of older German citizens who 
*also* mistakenly thought they had lost ...

 MVDV> The coalition that the US joined in the second half of WWII did. They
 MVDV> would have won without the USA.
 
... [snicker] ... 'scuse me ...

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

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

Actually I think your problems go *far* beyond your mistaken 
impressions of me ... [sigh] ...

... Better days are coming ÄÄ Saturday & Sunday

___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v3.0pr5
 * Origin: Try Our Web Based QWK: DOCSPLACE.ORG (1:123/140)