> Do you casually describe people as cancer? When you think of an "administrator", does that person have a blurry face, or does that person have the face of som

> Do you casually describe people as cancer? When you think of an "administrator", does that person have a blurry face, or does that person have the face of someone you know and love? > I'm not going to say that everything is perfect here, but this kind of vitriol feels qualitatively different, and I'm sorry you can't see that, but you're also not the target of these kinds of attacks. I do not describe people as "cancer." As an aside, there seem to be some interesting parallels to the dynamic of police critics/police apologists here. >> I also get the impression you're probably also conflating me other others. > I think I've responded to you directly to your points in this thread. If I've mistaken a point someone else made for one you made, please point that out and I'll reformulate my response with apologies.... You repeatedly characterized me as angry about this ("bent out of shame", "mad"), even after I corrected you. The whole first part of your recent comment kinda confirms to me that you are probably at least partially responding to me as a stereotype of "university critics" that you've created. >> So, in other words, based on your example, there's a decent chance they'd be open to help, at least a little. > Yes, a far cry from where we started, which was that subcommittees should have their work approved by linguistics experts before publication, which is unreasonable. That's not where "we" started, that's where you started. I think you were always projecting a more formalized, rigid, bureaucratized process onto what I said than I ever imagined. > The much more reasonable stance is that subcommittees could leverage expertise available on campus from time to time, but we shouldn't have the expectation that linguistics experts should be on call to vet these kinds of things, and that they don't should rise to the level of incompetence. Because literally no one is held to that standard. I think the reasonable stance is that you shouldn't be creating language policies like the one I quoted if you lack access to the competence to do so. It rises to the level of incompetence if you don't double-check using widely-available reference material and a little common sense and you fail consult experts who could catch your mistakes. Organizationally, someone in an oversight capacity should have been paying attention to catch the problems. Which were glaring, since I, a dog on the internet, found one in about 30 seconds. > Although the amusing thing to me here if we are to take your proposal seriously, then the correct course of action would be to create a department tasked with specifically being experts through which communications would be filtered. This department would require administrators, and I'm sure you know what the people here would say about this department. Doesn't Standford have an organizational communications department? One would think they'd have some competence in crafting communications policy that the IT department may lack. Alternatively, if administrative overhead is a concern, a totally valid course of action is to play it safe and either avoid creating such policies in the first place or creating ones that are don't stray from areas were there isn't an clear consensus.