Imploding Turtle wrote:It is the ******* point. The whole point of his job is for him to give highly accurate assessments that cannot be open to misinterpretation. The guy has done absolutely nothing wrong, as previous ambassadors have stated. But i guess they're wrong and that you, constantly pig-ignorant as you are, are right.
Thanks for the stars, Charlie. They really do help give a good impression of your state of mind.
It's an ambassador's job to give accurate reports but you clearly aren't capable of much imaginative thought if you think he has to spill out his guts in a grisly Virginia Woolfe style stream of consciousness every time he composes an email.
As I've said -repeatedly, though you haven't acknowledged it- it isn't his fault because he should have a reasonable expectation the emails should have remained confidential. But that is only mitigating at best in his poor choice of linguistic register.
If this is difficult for you to understand (and it would appear so) let me re-phrase it once more:
He picked bad words. His job was to pick nice words. Even if he thought the words should be secret, he should have picked nice words.
Hope this helps in your understanding of the matter.
aggi wrote:So basically what you're saying is the ambassador should refrain from briefings where they think the UK may already know and use euphemisms rather than being candid. I can't see any confusion arising from that.
I mean there is a chance that you know how to do the ambassador's job better than a hugely experienced diplomat I guess but it seems slim.
"So what you're saying is....."
No.
I said what I said earlier.
I said that ambassadors should use an appropriate register for written communications.
If that's too difficult, I've simplified it for Turtleboy above.
Burnley Ace wrote:The phrase keeps popping up because the absolute stupidity of what you are writing is almost unbelievable. What sort of language should a diplomat use when the medium is secure encrypted emails sent from the embassy prob ably marked confidential or secret, addressed to the Prime Minister or Foreign Secretary?
Has Ringo hacked your account?
When sending any written correspondence I should consider that any foreign attache or civil servant should suspect or even presume that their correspondence can (and will) be intercepted and read by foreign intelligence.
This should apply to those working with our closest allies almost as much as it applies to our most dangerous potential enemies. The fact that the leak had come from within the British government is galling but it really underlines the need for vigilance.
If you don't believe in choosing an appropriate register for professional purposes and think that because the email *should* have been encrypted and confidential that the ambassador has *no* case to answer (for the record, I don't blame him for the incident even though his choice of language makes him partially culpable for the incident) then I suggest you attempt to call your boss a c*nt in the same jocular fashion as you might do to mate down the pub. You can update us as to how your employment status progresses as you continue to call your boss a c*nt.
Unless your boss also happens to be your best mate, you might have to quickly reassess your opinion on what constitutes the correct linguistic register (even if you are unfamiliar with the linguistic terminology) and revert to choosing an address and register which respects your boss's superiority. If you want to keep your job, that is.
Similar applies(d) to Sir Kim. If he hadn't openly slagged off Trump, he'd still be in a job. If Sir Kim had managed to re-phrase his email in a manner which didn't so directly poke fun at the Trump administration he would undoubtedly still be in a job and none of us would have heard of him.
As he failed and the email was leaked he had very little choice but to resign.
So should he have lied, as martin_p outrageously claimed he should have?
No. Of course not. There are plenty of rhetorical methods to stress, highlight and make clear opinions, facts and events without losing your cool or using an inappropriate register.
If you want proof - just take a look at this thread, specifically look at my posts and compare them to implodingTurtles posts:
My posts have been written in a formal register. Even when I've been sarcastic and deliberately antagonistic. I've quoted the word "c*nt" but only in the context of somebody else using the word unwisely.
On the contrary, ImplodingTurtle's posts are littered with stars because he has opted for a highly informal register based on either typing out swear words or deliberate typing *s in place of them. His language is course and vernacular and highly prone to base profanities. In essence, he has lost his cool and lost his ability to temper his linguistic register.
Either of these two registers might not be problematic on a message board but then again neither me nor Turtle are the UK ambassador the the United States of America.
Hopefully this augmented explanation will help those of you who have struggled to understand the point that I've been consistently making here.
If you have any further questions I'll endeavour to help but can't promise anything because of my work commitments.
All the best,
Rowls
And for the record, I do *not* advise calling your boss a c*nt; I was making a rhetorical point.