Posted Sep 10, 2002 by Luxringer
At the start of your article you say:
> almost anyone living in a civilised country (and even some who aren't).
This implies that there are countries that are uncivilised which is not true, especially if you wish to be pedantic and define 'civilisation'.
This could be offensive to some people so something like 'developed nations' or to be even more PR: 'more developed nations'
Wotchit
|
 
|  | |
|
|
Posted Sep 11, 2002 by NAITA (Join ViTAL - A1014625)
Your first point only applies if you take "uncivilised" to refer to "lacking a culture and government". My interpretation of 'some who aren't' in this context was 'opressive, censoring regimes who give their inhabitants limited access to the 'net', and not 'developing country with few or no computers'.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Sep 11, 2002 by Smij
I interpreted it the same way NAITA did - the first reference is a common phrase, the second is a play on the uncivilised acts of war that exist both in our own countries and across the globe.
I'd say it was general enough to apply to almost everywhere. What do others think?
Jimster
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Sep 11, 2002 by Demon Drawer (Really wishing he could put what he wants in here, but he's not upst with hootoo)
I agree that in the context of the subject of the article there are some regimes that are not civilised as far as romance is involved. Look at what has recently been going on in certain parts of hte world where romance has led to heinous punishments being meted out.
|
| | |
|
|
Posted Sep 11, 2002 by Luxringer
All right, but these nations are few and far between and are almost not worth mentioning.
|
| | |
|
|
|
|
Key |  |  |
A: An older reply to the parent Posting
B: The parent Posting, to which this is a reply
C: A newer reply to the parent posting
D: The first reply to this Posting
| | |
Click on this icon to make a complaint about a specific Posting | |
Home
Reply
