Specifically:
2 is a warning that is used for comments that are unnecessarily aggressive or disruptive in their tone. Such ratings should never be used to indicate that you disagree with the comment.
Thank you.
For three and a half years I used my ratings sparingly: I identified apparently Chinese troll who attacked my Tibetan diaries and me personally.
This Chinese troll did not appear since then so I think I was right, not Colman, Migeru and Jerome a Paris who disagreed with me on pretext of "free speach".
Then I used "warning" only to comments by Nomad on Zimbabwe, Jerome a Paris on defence of ban on a burqa and thirdly for afew for very rude personal comment which misinterpreted my comment.
You disagree with a ban on a burqa (it seems without distinguishing between bans pertaining to specific places and/or professions, which Jérôme seems to be favouring and which would not apply to the tourists you bring up; and general bans, which Sarko seems to have suggested). That in itself makes your warnings ones for disagreement, not misbehaviour. *Lunatic*, n. One whose delusions are out of fashion.
Then I used "warning" only to comments by Nomad on Zimbabwe, Jerome a Paris on defence of ban on a burqa
A point of fact: your rating of Jerome a Paris above is not a warning, it is a troll rating (1).
Specifically on European Tribune, * consider that a lot of people don't communicate with you in their first language. Even after years of study, people can err in the meaning of words, not realise that a mangled-up order of words gives a different meaning, or - very important - try to translate word combinations or concepts from their first language 'too literally' and get something else. Vice versa, if you aren't communicating in your first language, and get a 'strange' reply, the error isn't necessarily on the other side. * consider that people come with cultural differences. Some local cultural specialities will have evaded you even if you lived in that locale as an expat for years. Vice versa, if you see someone not comprehending a concept familiar to you, it's not necessarily down to obstuseness or lack of humour, it's better to explain it first. * consider that some of these differences are so deep that they touch concepts you think of as basic, concepts you have never even thought can be viewed differently.
* consider that a lot of people don't communicate with you in their first language. Even after years of study, people can err in the meaning of words, not realise that a mangled-up order of words gives a different meaning, or - very important - try to translate word combinations or concepts from their first language 'too literally' and get something else. Vice versa, if you aren't communicating in your first language, and get a 'strange' reply, the error isn't necessarily on the other side.
* consider that people come with cultural differences. Some local cultural specialities will have evaded you even if you lived in that locale as an expat for years. Vice versa, if you see someone not comprehending a concept familiar to you, it's not necessarily down to obstuseness or lack of humour, it's better to explain it first.
* consider that some of these differences are so deep that they touch concepts you think of as basic, concepts you have never even thought can be viewed differently.
In my view, the last point, about the depth of differences, pretty much sums up the situation here about the burqa. Two sets of essentially decent people whose fundamental ways of seeing the world divide sharply over this issue. ET is often at its most enlightening when this happens, and our rules of behaviour are the reason why it's one of very few places where these issues can be explored in a civilised manner.
So, I will ask you again. Please do not abuse the ratings system.
it's not only turban's ban but this burqa issue became HUGE here in India, so many talk shows, polemic articles and discussions.
maybe for the French supporters of these bans it will be interesting to know that overwhelming majority of Indian polticians, intellectuals, feminists condemned these bans as TOTALITARIAN moves. France quickly turns into fascist state where authorities want to wage war not only on Islam (which is expected) but on all religious minorities.
As Mani Shankar Ayar from the ruling Congress party said yesterday in NDTV's talk show "Left, Right and Centre": "Today they ban burqa, tomorrow they will ban sari".
It's very regretful that propaganda of totalitarian bans did not evoke any response from bloggers here, maybe their countries are not so much different from France.
There is growing pressure in India on Manmohan Singh's government to condemn and take up these bans with Sarkozy's government and demand their revocation.
