From: evan@telly.on.ca (Evan Leibovitch)
Newsgroups: can.politics
Subject: Re: Education
Date: 30 Jul 92 21:58:46 GMT
Organization: Somewhere just far enough out of Toronto

In article <SBO.92Jul27155627@froh.vlsi.polymtl.ca>
	sbo@vlsi.polymtl.ca (Stephane Boucher) writes:

>  > >  > If a merchant won't speak to you in the language of your choice, then
>  > >  > don't buy from them. If enough customers act this way, then these
>  > >  > businesses either:
>
>  > >Evan? Is that you? A couple of months ago I posted a message
>  > >asking people if I should by a product from a unilingual
>  > >anglophone, and you basically said yes.

Sheesh.

If you really need a certain brand of item, and it's the best price on
the market, but they guy who sells it only speaks German, would you buy
from him?

As I said, there are a lot of factors influencing one's decision to buy.
You could evaluate all the factors, and possibly, just possibly, end up
with the conclusion that a unilingual anglophone is the best person to
buy from. In order to make this choice, the anglophone would have to
outweigh the French-speaking marketplace in many factors by a
considerable margin. But it's still possible.

That you would read the entire discussion, and only pick out of it that
all these arrogant Anglos think it's logical to encourage unilingualism,
is a very sad comment on what you get out of such a discussion.

>  > How a merchant treats customers should *always* be a factor in whether
>  > or not a shopper buys goods there. And I would certainly consider it to
>  > a store's detriment if its personnel could not speak my language. It
>  > could be a major factor, but not the only factor, in making a purchase
>  > decision.
>
>You also concluded your remark by saying something like:
>"...So if he sells what you want, and he's the only one,
>then buy it." You where essentially telling me to go buy it
>somewhere else if I can, but otherwise to not make a fuss
>over such a thing.

You make a fuss with your spending decisions. If enough francophones
patronize businesses that treat them well, the others will have to
either adapt, go out of business, or be superior on many other ways.

>Then you are suggesting to another netter
>to simply boycott the involved merchant. You suddenly become
>radical,

This is radical?

Francois answered the same post by saying it wouldn't happen because
Quebec didn't have a Ghandi.

What seems radical to you is common sense to others. What seems normal
to you is outrageous to others.

>while in the repply to my posting you suggested to
>be rationnal.

What is irrational about spending money in the manner which will benefit
you the most (short-term *and* long-term)?

>I don't have the posting archived. I'm going from memory.

And obviously, a damned selective memory at that.

>Hmmm! the subject says "Education", and you where talking
>about a merchants, among other things. Anyway, I was not
>attempting to address the central point. I was merely
>pointing out what I tought to be contradictory.

Even though this is not true for this thread, I see nothing wrong with
having opinions or attitudes that evolve or change over time. Some
people call this having an open mind, and being willing to change an
opinion if the right arguments are advanced.

Do you suggest there is something wrong with having an opinion that can
change? Is having an opinion that refuses to be swayed by reason,
something to be proud of?

-- 
 Evan Leibovitch, Sound Software Ltd., located in beautiful Brampton, Ontario
         evan@telly.on.ca / uunet!utzoo!telly!evan / (416) 452-0504
    Was "Trouble" (from the Broadway Show, Music Man) the first rap song?