Tuesday, 1st July 2008
RADIO(RE)ACTIVE
This new fangled Internet thingy has made the columnist’s life interactive to a degree that can be disconcerting. No longer do you turn to the letters page of a morning, wondering whether some outrageous remark printed a week or so ago has raised the hackles of some reader, inspiring him (almost always a ‘him’ for some reason) to blast off a “Dear Sir, your so-called columnist....” to the Editor. The technicalities of publication generally led to this seeing the light of day quite some time later, in its turn this leading to a “oh, shall I bother answering or not” reaction on the part of the columnist. Being a relatively combative type, at least in print, I generally did.
We started of the process of change by putting email addresses at the bottom of the printed column, which meant that responses would come in up close and personal, rather than, at best, in an envelope forwarded on from the Editor’s desk. At least, this type of response tended to remain personal, so the stimulus to answer was always slightly muted, though I have been known to expose some particularly Neanderthalic respondent to the light of publication.
The change in landscape has become even more pronounced now that the papers have caught up with the www revolution big time. Now, responses to the stuff we columnists put out come in almost in real time, the delay between pushing the ‘send’ button and the comment popping up on screen being governed only by the physical needs for sustenance and r&r of the people responsible for the electronic side of the paper, known as the moderators, for good reason. Theirs is the task the Editor used to have to undertake at a more leisurely pace, imposing some moderation on the more radioactive communications that used to trickle, but now tend to flood, in.
It’s not only the comments section and email that lead to reactions heading our way of course. I don’t know about my columnar colleagues, but I’ve even started getting responses through my Facebook Page. One bloke, Godwin Micallef, expressed his displeasure about something I wrote by inviting me to go on being a show-off, vile person that I am, because I would find a cap to fit me eventually. My invitation to him to explain himself went unanswered, though a glance at his own Page gave me an inkling of where he was coming from. Let me put it this way, he’s a member of, amongst others, groups on Facebook that delight in the titles of “We Demand Our Governments Stop Muslim Immigration”, “I Hate Wiggers”, “IMPERIUM EUROPA” (enough said, really) and “Save The White Race”.
In the same way that I – like all columnists – have an opinion to express (why else do we do it, pray?) I also like to carry on the debate and, truth be told, jog it along by adding fuel to the merry flames. My style, if it can be called a ‘style’ with the assumption that it is stylish that the word conjures up, is to try to provoke some self-deprecation by being mildly facetious. Sometimes I try to be more serious than less, but the temptation to indulge in leg-pulling is strong and rarely overcome. This character trait is one that has been remarked on in the past, even by the poor souls who used to try to shove some learnin’ into my head, and it is not one that endears me to a certain type, the type that prefers earnestness and worthy debate over lightness of touch and a bit of judicious poking.
To quote whatever ‘er name was, frankly, m’dear, I don’t give a damn – if you want turgid argument, backed up with solid research and geometric balance between all view points, tune in to some debate programme regulated by that august protector of impartiality, the Broadcasting Authority, where you will get two out of three at least. No prizes for getting which two out of those three, incidentally. I, on the other hand, will continue to remind my targets that they’re human, and that if they’ve chosen to go public, we, the people, will talk about them, sometimes less respectfully than they and (more likely) their admirers would wish. I’ll also continue to seek to drag out from under their clammy stones those who lurk in the shade of “freedom of association” and “freedom of expression”, using these human rights to deny the rights of others to decent treatment.
Responding to comments about my column (and this blog) by comments of my own is all very well, of course, but the telegraphic style that has to be used in order not to make the process boring tends to leave things a bit on the short side. The people who misunderstand, or choose to misunderstand, the original piece can fulminate all they like and your explanation or reaction, especially if it is not posted directly above the relevant comment, sometimes leaves something to be desired. The advantage of being a regular columnist, though, is that you have a few thousand, as opposed to a couple of hundred (at most) words at your disposal to draw together some points.
I kicked off quite an exchange, last week, when I commented on an interview with Ms Michelle Muscat, Dr Joseph’s wife, pointing out, mostly genuinely but with tongue where it should be, that now that Ms Muscat has chosen, as she has every right to, to enter the public arena, it is to be expected that there will be some rough along with the smooth. A perfectly reasonable comment, you might think, but one provoked all manner of lil’elves to charge to her defence, calling me pathetic, accusing me of salivating over the prospect of some more character assassination and, generally, giving the impression that I am out to crucify the young lady.
Nothing could be further from the truth. The interview itself was a perfectly harmless piece, enjoyable enough in its own way, and Ms Muscat came across in a very positive light. I have never, anyway, been one to go for the personal jugular, for all that my (many) detractors choose to give the impression that I do. I am on record years ago, for instance, as objecting to the use of personal information on Dr Alfred Sant, even though this information was (marginally) relevant to comments about his position on a social issue of continuing relevance. This is not to be taken as my bid for sainthood, and I’ve no doubt that I’ve slipped often enough, but there is a difference, to my mind, between a private and public life.
My only point in connection with the Muscat, Michelle of that ilk, interview was that she has now put herself in the same position as, for example, Cherie Blair and I sincerely hope she doesn’t come to regret it, because she doesn’t seem to deserve being treated shabbily.
In a different context, there has been a flurry of comment about the election, if a process involving some forty souls can be called an election, of Paul Borg Olivier to the Secretary-Generalship of the Nationalist Party. I have been cited as a prime example of Nationalistic (as in, being a running dog lackey of the Nationalist Party, not because I resort to wrapping myself in the flag) hypocrisy, because I had, in the very recent past, commented on the manner in which the Labour Party elected its own leadership.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: the MLP, the Casino Maltese, Bubaqra FC and the Republican Party are free to elect their leaders in any way their little hearts desire. This does not mean, however, that people like me, if the moment moves them, will not comment, for instance, on the fact that the way the MLP party-machine reacted to a proposal that the internal ‘electorate’ is widened demonstrated an eagerness on the part of the cogs in that machine to preserve themselves and their interests. This does not mean that I think that the MLP is any more, or less, democratic (there are other indicators of that, one way or the other) and it does not mean that I have the right to expect that things change merely because I think they should.
Just to annoy the lil’elves, though, don’t they think, in their hearts of heart, that they should tinker with their machine just a touch? Come on, guys, three thumpings in a row: Mourinho and Grant got the chop and they actually had significant successes, for heaven’s sake.
RSS
Comments
If only the limit is increased to 250 !
Your question regarding my remark : "The status of the English language in countries other than Britain has nothing to do with its proper use."
What I meant here, and I am surprised that you did not pick up on it, is whether the English language is a country's first or second language, that is immaterial. In either case it should be written and spoken correctly.
Countries which chose to custom design the English language are not genuinely using the Queen's English but a brand of their own. For example the Americans are known to speak American English and have a habit of creating their own spelling. Would that be acceptable in Britain? Would the dailies not be grilled if they start using American style English?
In Malta we do not have Maltese English. We learn and teach English - pure and simple and as such we should speak and write it as it should - the correct way.
I hope that the above addresses your concerns without the need of further clashes!
Let me assure you that neither do I remember clashing with you, so where you got that from is a mystery to me too. Perhaps you may enlighten me in this regard.
Now, let me address your concerns about the English language.
If you look below you will see a correction which was done shortly after I pressed the 'Submit' button, however for some reason your correction went in before mine had a chance to appear. Don't ask me why, but it happens quite often.
When I respond on a blog, I sometimes have to scroll up and down and while typing I completely disregard typos since habitually I use spell check. That time I pasted the contents on my word processor in order to spell check and I forgot to replace the original which also contained the misuse of 'has' for 'have'. In my subsequent correction which I sent before your remarks appeared, I corrected some other spelling mistakes. I am surprised that you did not pick on 'capuccino' and 'expresso', which leads me to believe that you would have misspelled them yourself!
See part 2
How well you understand it might give you some indication of your familiarity with the English language
> Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can. i cdnuolt blveiee
> taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal
> pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabridge
> Uinervtisy, it dseno't mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are,
> the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the
> rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it
> whotit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not taed ervey
> lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? Yaeh, and I
> awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt!
You really are living in La La Land like Jason Micallef. You must be suffering from amnesia and Jason Micallef must have failed miserably his math exams.
I am puzzled that I have given you that impression.
of my thoughts regarding Malta
Parts with corrections have been reproduced here.
SORRY FOR THE OVERSIGHT !
@ Mark Spiteri
Maybe you, Mark, have a valid opinion on this matter.
@ d Attard
Under Nationalist 'misrule' you are able to enjoy a cappuccino. Twenty one years ago, under a Labour illegitimate regime one had to file a multi page application and wait a few weeks before being able to import an espresso machine! I doubt whether then, you ever enjoyed a cappuccino, relaxed and enjoyed a pristine view from your habitat. Back then everything was pristine, preowned and precarious but more importantly, we were under a fair, uncorrupted, efficient Labour government which permitted freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and free trade.
Were we not lucky?
Raising income (wages and pensions) without a corresponding rise in productivity will only increase inflation. That brings us back to the need to enhance the potential of our tourist industry (among other measures to increase our productivity in other sectors)
Your recollection of times under Labour are possibly somewhat flawed. I remember those times well, when we were so well off that we could actually pop over to London to buy our chocolates. What a warm feeling opening our bags to overflowing with so many goodies. Those were the days.
It was a golden period of a joy per day. The excitement of being able to enjoy for a first time colour TV in our very home. It seemed like Christmas was coming every week. If that was not enough, then came theVCR’s. Wow We could go to our favorite restaurant, and return home to watch the day’s Dallas or Dynasty fare at the mere touch of a button! We could also withdraw money from wall contraptions such was the progress.
We were indeed spoilt for choice. OK so the Nats were slightly miffed at all that progress and were holding doom and gloom meetings in every village and alley. Who can blame them. They see themselves as the natural rulers of Malta descendants of the Mdina ruling class, and all that, despite their mundane-leaning tendency. Now we should not spoil their illusionary self-perceptions do we :)
“All my emphasis was about the use of the simple past tense as opposed to the past participle. I solicit a response from an English specialist who can explain to me whether one has the choice of using either. My past learning tells me no.
Maybe you, Mark, has a valid opinion on this matter.”
PP Now I am no English specialist but in answer to your first paragraph I would say that it depends on the context.
In regard to your query to Mark, I will be charitable and say that you made a typo in substituting “has” for “have”
I believe that when I first contributed to this blog that you wrote
that we had clashed before.
I have no recollection of that but accept your statement..
I know you to be an articulate and prolific contributor to the Maltese press
and indeed read a posting by you this morning in the INDEPENDENT.
However to your current posting to this blog I would ask you to explain your sentence
"The status of the English language in countries other than Britain has nothing to do with its proper use."
Nowhere in my posting did I;
Criticize your spelling.
Claim to be a fanatic though I prefer correctness in spelling and language use.
The status of the English language in countries other than Britain has nothing to do with its proper use.
All my emphasis was about the use of the simple past tense as opposed to the past participle. I solicit a response from an English specialist who can explain to me whether one has the choice of using either. My past learning tells me no.
Maybe you, Mark, has a valid opinion on this matter.
@ d Attard
Under a Nationalist 'misrule' you are able to enjoy a capuccino. Twenty one years ago, under a Labour illegitimate regime one had to file a multi page application and wait a few weeks before being able to import an expresso machine! I doubt whether then, you ever enjoyed a capuccino, relaxed and enjoyied a pristine view from your habitat. Back then everything was pristine, preowned and precarious but more importantly, we were under a fair, uncorrupted, efficient Labour government which permitted freedom of assembly, freedom of speech and free trade.
Were we not lucky?
Rationing by price has always been the most effective method of reducing satisfied demand.
less oil or rather petrol, less traffic-particularly private motoring.
fFewer cars means less expenditure and enhances tourism- I would have to explain at length.
Tourism is Malta's lifeblood but it is a fickle trade though likely to continue and if Malta would be made more attractive then income would rise.
I have studied Malta as a tourist area for half a century during which time it has become less attractive even though visitors have increased.
I see little hope of Malta increasing its income except by enhancing tourism and this would require a multitude of minor improvements but fewer cars would be a great help.
I am duly flattered Charles but modesty forbids.
As one gets older you come to realise your failings
and i have so many.
Possibly my greatest failing is to be sarcastic
and i would urge all Gentle Readers not to fall into that trap
for sarcasm is peculiarly hurtful and obstructive on email.
The rise in the cost of oil is affecting pensioners, workers and all of us. What the b. hell can be done, you say. "Elementary, Watson!", only one solution suggests itself, increase income. If you ask me how, then the question is no longer elementary and one would need all the help one can get. Nothing can be done about the increase in the price of oil but the same does not apply for an inrease in income.
Aldo G. Portelli
Ideally he should be the one writing the article, and ABC demoted to mere mortal poster. Or they could both have their own times blog, and proceed to engage in fierce inter blog rivalries.
Yes, yes Mark we are all aware of the world-wide use of English
but what is the point you are making?
To those, if any, who wish to be pedantic about English
there are groups such as Alt. English Language and Alt. Language English
(The difference between the two is fascinating to a student of the language.)
I, for one, am here to discuss all aspects of Malta but the question of language in the islands is a most delicate one.
Bottom of the EU environment league? my my that is a surprise.
Through life we store information collected from experiences. We try to make some sense out of it. Yet we often give up and retreat into set prejudices that may cascade into xenophobic and such tendencies.
The intelligent among us do not live happily with prejudices, and hide behind political correctness overcompensating in given circumstances. Note how MLP ‘objectors’ are protectors of the ‘immigrant’ population. Look at America today, eager to elect a black president to convince the world that they have overcome their racist tendencies.
Intelligent souls, therefore, have a need to externalise their prejudices, so that elves can challenge their prejudices.
Elves too externalise information and predjudices. We all need a different perspective if we are to retain a modicum of self-respect. It may help us live a lesser lie, or hopefully, someday, embark on a true search for our own being.
As you are a fanatic of the English Language,enjoy the following information:
It is estimated that there are 300 million native speakers and 300 million who use English as a second language and a further 100 million use it as a foreign language. It is the language of science, aviation, computing, diplomacy, and tourism. It is listed as the official or co-official language of over 45 countries and is spoken extensively in other countries where it has no official status. English plays a part in the cultural, political or economic life of the following countries:Antigua Australia Bahamas Barbados Belize Bermuda Botswana Brunei
Cameroon Canada Dominica Fiji Gambia Ghana Grenada Guyana India Ireland Jamaica
Kenya Kiribati Lesotho Liberia Malawi Malta Mauritius Namibia Nauru New Zealand Nigeria
Pakistan Papua New Guinea Philippines Puerto Rico St Christopher and Nevis St Lucia
St Vincent Senegal Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore South Africa Surinam Swaziland
Tanzania Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tuvalu Uganda United Kingdom and its dependences
United States of America and its dependencies Vanatu Western Samoa Zambia Zimbabwe
Once again I wonder why you characters are so bogged down with spelling and syntax.
Our beloved leader sets situations and questions which we are supposed to discuss-for if there is any other purpose I do not discern it. Let us take his first paragraph that deals with the immediacy of email compared with snail. Well yes I suppose we all perceive that and appreciate that email is more like conversation than formal writing. Do we quibble at minor lapses in conversation-of course not.
Email is-or should be- succinct but it should be clear in its intention and here is where I protest for I simply cannot understand some contributions. Yes again I am aware of the
particular problems of the English language in Malta but that
is all the more reason to write simply and avoid ambiguity.
Well it is amazing how active this blog is. It is truly explosive. Over the past weeks I have gone through many blogs, both local and international, trying to understand the power and politics of blogs. It is part of my thesis submission whereby I will try to figure out how weblogs occupy an increasingly important place in the political sphere. To add on blogging and internet are also by of my past time. What is amazing is that people stick to political and sports forums. Just take a look hereunder, the words ‘to’, ‘too’ and ‘arrogance’ kept the debate going on for 2 days. To the guys above, keep the blog going….(Keith Grech, Attard)
It is the improper use of the past participle when a simple past tense would be the tense to use. As an example observed lately in this and other papers - "I was spoilt having been treated so well..." The correct form would be, "I was spoiled ...."
The government, this paper has learnt intends to...." Again why 'learnt' when the simple past tense requires the word 'learned'?
One has to peel back five decades before encountering one of my excellent English teachers two of whom were Englishmen themselves - Messrs. Parker, and Wood and whose first names presently escape my memory.
One thing I picked up along this long road of experience is the KISS principle - keep it simple stupid. So in this vein,
I wouldn't mind being enlightened about the evolution of the English language which may have changed its proper use from what I had been taught some fifty years ago.
I do excuse an obvious spelling error done in hastily prepared text, this medium being what it is, but when words are misused, that really gets my goat.
One peeve I have, and this applies to many including paper editors, columnists and other contributors and it also almost exclusive to Maltese English papers.
(Continued in part 2)
Arrogance? c'est moi (by open admission)...and there's more where it came from if you like. In the meantime take a while to try to follow the line of thought:
Mark Spiteri made a point - but his spelling left much to be desired. You butt in and say that you could not have said it better. Which is where I told you that you could... because you could say it better by spelling it right.
Geddit? I guess no... you'll be busy feeling victimised all over again thanks to my proud contempt of others etc etc. U hallina tridx.
Not one word... one phrase: It's the Grammar, Stupid! And before you go calling me arrogant please note that this is a very witty and refined reference to a US electoral slogan in the Bill Clinton Campaign against George Bush. I'd have liked to use my own words... but I could'nt have said it better.
Re your request for help;
To locate your misuse of the word "to" instead of the correct "too" you must be able to follow this blog by scrolling down to your previous comment and not to restrict yourself to the last 24 hours.
Now do you get it? And did you mean "you don't follow" my line of thought as in you don't understand it or as in you don't subscribe to it?
I'm losing the will to live. Or, to put it in lil'elvian, I'm losing the will to live.
My statement read : Couldn't Have Said It Better.
Can anyone point out the word 'to' or 'too' in that statement! (Keith Grech, Attard)
Either you don't follow this blog, or you must be as Blind as a Bat.
I agreed with Mark Spiteri's comments as I don't follow ABC's line of thought. It is always a one way street!
Pointing out that two out of four words are wrongly spelt is not arrogance. Arrogance is when you expect that someone else should be held responsible for editing out your spelling mistakes.
One word - Arrogance.
The act or habit of arrogating, or making undue claims in an overbearing manner; that species of pride which consists in exorbitant claims of rank, dignity, estimation, or power, or which exalts the worth or importance of the person to an undue degree; proud contempt of others.
By the way I never knew I was responsible for editing this blog! (Keith Grech Attard)
I actually found this interesting as an introspective analysis on the effects of technology on ones woking life.
This is my business and I find few people actually look into the negative/positive effects technology has on people.
What's interesting is how quickly it has happened. If you think that up to a year ago (I'm not sure how many newspapers have actually done this but let's say a few years then) a reporter was more impersonal and on a one way communication basis. Doing little better than reporting facts or at best their personal opinion, clearly stating when it is personal opinion. Serious newspapers at least would make sure of that.
The internet has turned all this on its head. Reminds me of a great movie I've just seen actually "good night and good luck"
@ABC, worth nothing what Murrow was saying then and apply it for now. This may be a great medium to elicit discussion where otherwise there would be none but let's please not go down the way TV has gone.
If that does happen then Angela Franklin would have been right ... again and so far she has not missed much.
Though myself left-wing I am not exactly enamoured of MLP
whilst I refrain from making detailed comment on PN-or is it NP nowadays? Not being Maltese I must exercise a little caution, though man is indeed a political animal.
One cannot but help noticing a certain dissatisfaction amongst contributors but they must find the blog worthy of comment. I have read I M Beck for very many years and subscribed to various forums-sometimes getting thrown out or leaving one step before ejection.
We who contribute to the press, forums and blogs must enjoy the sight of our words in print- for, unlike Beck, we are not being paid for it.
Old men do like to prattle on.
c. cassar - Chelsea, rubbish? bah!
k. chircop - blog? greater purposes? what do you think this is, philosophy or something?
l. boffa - amusing? thanks but somehow I suspect complimenting me wasn't the point...
You seem to have nothing much to do and enjoy your spare time (seems you have enough of it) hoping, alas with some success, to provoke some people to pass comments, argue, 'enjoy', and help fill up your spare time, with the same old comments regarding the opposition, be it the leader, the wife, the party, whatever relates to it!
I did fall into your trap once or twice ... you can fool some people some time, but never all the time. I am no longer one of them. Not worth the bother! Good bye.
Are we to be reduced to criticism of one another’s spelling, syntax and grammar?
Seventy years ago I was a pupil at the Dockyard School in Cospicua and twenty years later I bought that survey on Malta by the University of Durham (H Bowen-Jones et al) in which it considered the only hope for Malta was the Dockyard. Well we all know what has happened since then-and why.
For four years in the nineteen-thirties I lived in the external Married Quarters of Fort Ricasoli on the ground that is to be SmartCity Malta and of course I am interested in the progress of that project-though I shall not live long enough to see it accomplished-if indeed it is completed.
The king-pin of Malta’s economy is of course tourism-a project that was not planned but grew like Topsy from servicemen like myself taking their families to an island that held happy memories. Read the letters in the TOM of how shopkeepers,
bus drivers and everyone else rip-off tourists-and despair.
Malta is too good for the Maltese.
Not one of your best, Boccaboy.
Rambling, wordy and condescendingly avuncular
Mark Spiteri, please do bother in the future, you might pick something up.
Martineli - never fear, inspiration is never lacking on these shores, no doubt I'll think up something with which to annoy the lil'elves.
Ripard - gee thanks, the benefits of a classical eggerkayshin illustrated.
Zammit - gee thank, the benefits of a geeky education illustrated.
Isn't being able to coment on the comments fun?
Couldn't Have Said It Better
Get rid of this BLOG
To clinical ! To Boring ! Will not bother with it anymore.
Fear not, August 4 and 5 are not too far off although I imagine that this particular article of yours will not survive the week. There just isn't much to chew on except the very last bits most of which have been hashed and rehashed ad infinitum.
So, get a thinking cap (if you can find one that fits, of course) and get down to business so you can fill the gap between the end of the week and August 6.
Viz le Blog, what I would like to have seen (and may yet do so), is Old Labour (you know the one - secondhand everything, don't dare contradict, etc etc) trying to cope with the digital age when in power. Now there's a culture shock in the making!!
On a totally different note the first few paragraphs deal with slaveishness to the interactivity of the net. I don't really know if it is a good thing but the days of worry are over. "Push" technology combined with a good handheld device like the iPhone 3G (yep, a new religion) will at least assuage the frustration of not knowing whether any juicy comments have been posted whenever you are too far from your PC or cannot be bothered to use the laptop. In the meantime it may be time to form the BA (Bloggers Anonymous) for the addicts and overly-dependent.