From: "Matthew J. Miszewski" <mjmiski@execpc.com>
Date: Sun, 22 Dec 1996 14:57:43 -0800 (PST)
To: "Mark M." <markm@voicenet.com>
Subject: Re: Ebonics
Message-ID: <3.0.32.19961222165645.006c01fc@mail.execpc.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----

At 08:30 PM 12/21/96 -0500, Mark M. wrote:
>I never said that the government should force people to speak a certain
>language.  You are missing the main point: How do you expect to communicate
>with an employee who can't speak any language that you can understand?  It's
>not arbitrary at all.  In fact, it's rather simple.

I have apparently been excrutiatingly unclear in my last post (tired folks
should stay away from their terminals).  I wasnt refrencing governmental
action, but rather a flaw in some principles.  I believe that the line of
thought that we should all speak "proper" english leads to anti-libertarian
results.  What has been missing from my posts is the link to the chain of
english-as-an-official-language regulation.  

Tim's argument for the ability to communicate is somewhat reasonable in an
employment context (although it depends largely upon the employment).  When
it is couched in the terms of his post, it makes the link to the chain of
reasoning above much easier to make. 

Matt

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 2.6.2

iQCVAwUBMr28prpijqL8wiT1AQH70AP/TV7qcy3y26yeH+eNvm9MVBY0NfuBGokC
uHS1NxpiIxl6NUTXIZTHKjlOd/pGM8JBgV6fp+7o+iruiJWBhE6mql+d/NAWjDiz
RLJ8brwuy0sqG98GrwCKHjsc6Bf88v+DcxHxAs92uEqJ6aKeEuqXiITFwKrC9xjf
euZxnLm0q6w=
=OEgE
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----