 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsEnglish UsageBritish EnglishESL Teaching Learnglish.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Discussion Groups / English Usage / January 2010repercussions
"China’s ruling Communist Party, wary of the Internet becoming an uncontrolled forum for the country’s 360million users, is unlikely to allow Google to avoid repercussions." What does "unlikely to allow Google to avoid repercussions" mean here? I don't comprehend the meaning. Please explicate it for me, thanks! source: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january132010/china_rfa.php On 26 Jan 2010, Yilaner wrote > "China’s ruling Communist Party, wary of the Internet becoming > an uncontrolled forum for the country’s 360million users, is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > source: > http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january132010/china_rfa.php Google's actions are likely to lead to some sort of retaliatory action by the Chinese government, against the company.  SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 26 Jan 2010, Yilaner wrote > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Google's actions are likely to lead to some sort of retaliatory > action by the Chinese government, against the company. Actually it's to avoid retaliation by Google. Google by flooding China with uncensored access to the internet could make thinks hot for the now fascist but formerly communist Chinese rulers. On 26 Jan 2010, Ray O'Hara wrote >> On 26 Jan 2010, Yilaner wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Actually it's to avoid retaliation by Google. That's not what the quote says in any reading that I can make of it. > Google by flooding China with uncensored access to the internet > could make thinks hot for the now fascist but formerly communist > Chinese rulers. That may well be the case -- but it's not what the article is stating. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 26 Jan 2010, Ray O'Hara wrote > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > That may well be the case -- but it's not what the article is > stating. My reading is China fears the repercussions of unfiltered internet access. The implied repercussions being the Chinese people getting foreign ideas about freedom and democracy/republican{small r} government. The Chinese ruling party will eventually find the tighter they squeeze the more that will ooze through their grip. >"Chinas ruling Communist Party, wary of the Internet becoming >an uncontrolled forum for the countrys 360million users, is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >source: http://www.salem-news.com/articles/january132010/china_rfa.php "Repercussions" are actions or effects that result from some other action or effect. Allowing Google access is an action that can result in effects that China's ruling party does not want to see happen. The primary effect that the ruling party would not want is the dissatisfaction that might result from free access of information. The dissatisfaction may encourage disruptive acts. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida > >"China s ruling Communist Party, wary of the Internet becoming > >an uncontrolled forum for the country s 360million users, is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > dissatisfaction that might result from free access of information. > The dissatisfaction may encourage disruptive acts. I disagree with you and Ray on this. It's Google that wants to avoid repercussions (retaliation by the Chinese government). -- Jerry Friedman On Jan 26, 1:06 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> wrote: > On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 06:20:09 -0800 (PST), Yilaner <yila...@gmail.com> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > dissatisfaction that might result from free access of information. > The dissatisfaction may encourage disruptive acts. I disagree with you and Ray on this. It's Google that wants to avoid repercussions (retaliation by the Chinese government). -- Jerry Friedman =================================================================== What can the Chinese Govt do to Google? They can ban it but can they actually prevent it intruding in a wireless world? Google has already been attacked by the Chinese government, that's why Google is removing the censorship the Chinese required. > On Jan 26, 1:06 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > been attacked by the Chinese government, that's why Google is > removing the censorship the Chinese required. The article clearly says that Google is complaining about the retaliation of the Chinese government: Google said Tuesday it would quit blocking politically sensitive information searches--a requirement set by China’s government--after what it called "a highly sophisticated and targeted attack on our corporate infrastructure originating from China." There you have the repercussions, the cyber-attacks suffered by Google. SignatureJames >> On Jan 26, 1:06 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > There you have the repercussions, the cyber-attacks suffered by Google. The cyber attacks came first. China began hacking GMail accounts of exiled dissidents. Google responded by threatening to remove the blocks on info. On 26 Jan 2010, Jerry Friedman wrote > On Jan 26, 1:06 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I disagree with you and Ray on this. It's Google that wants to > avoid repercussions (retaliation by the Chinese government). That's clearly what the sentence says. If you take out the part set off by commas, you get: "China's ruling Communist Party is unlikely to allow Google to avoid repercussions." If the writer intended an elision -- "unlikely to allow Google [to operate, in order to] avoid repercussions" -- it's a particularly cack-handed way to go about it. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 26 Jan 2010, Jerry Friedman wrote > If the writer intended an elision -- "unlikely to allow Google [to > operate, in order to] avoid repercussions" -- it's a particularly > cack-handed way to go about it. That is the interpetation I and I think Tony got. Google will be banned to avoid the repercussions that an informed population might cause, ie:revolution. Another Tianamen Sq is just below the surface waiting to erupt. On 26 Jan 2010, Ray O'Hara wrote >> On 26 Jan 2010, Jerry Friedman wrote >> If the writer intended an elision -- "unlikely to allow Google [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > informed population might cause, ie:revolution. > Another Tianamen Sq is just below the surface waiting to erupt. I suspect we'll probably differ on that, as well. I don't think there is another Tianamen Square waiting, mainly because the Chinese government learned something valuable (if lateral) from it: if you want to make a population docile, make them feel increasingly and individually prosperous. It seems pretty clear to me that their means of achieving this is to create something which we, in the west, convinced ourselves was a contradiction: a successful, resiliant, capitalist economy within an authoritarian, non-democratic state. And I think they're going to do it. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 26 Jan 2010, Ray O'Hara wrote > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > And I think they're going to do it. People always want more. One of the main reasons the Iron Curtain fell was the Soviets educated the masses and they wanted "freedom". China will find the same thing out, a well educated prosperous people will want political freedom too. On 26 Jan 2010, Ray O'Hara wrote >> On 26 Jan 2010, Ray O'Hara wrote >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > China will find the same thing out, a well educated prosperous > people will want political freedom too. I said we'd probably differ on this one. In the 1980s, the East Germans didn't feel optimistic about individual prosperity. I suspect if they had, there would have been little popular interest in political freedom -- let alone revolutionary action to achieve it. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed > On 26 Jan 2010, Ray O'Hara wrote > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > been little popular interest in political freedom -- let alone > revolutionary action to achieve it. Contrast that with Poland and the other conquered countries behind the Iron Curtin. The Russian so little trusted the East Germans that they put Russiann officers in charge of the higher military units such as brigades and division. > That's clearly what the sentence says. If you take out the part > set off by commas, you get: > > "China's ruling Communist Party is unlikely to allow Google to > avoid repercussions." I read that to mean that the Chinese government it threatening Google. If Google doesn't comply with Chinese law, Google will be unable to avoid the consequences: closure of their offices, blocking of their web site, even prosecution of their staff. SignatureJohn Varela Trade NEWlamps for OLDlamps for email On 26 Jan 2010, John Varela wrote >> That's clearly what the sentence says. If you take out the >> part set off by commas, you get: [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > be unable to avoid the consequences: closure of their offices, > blocking of their web site, even prosecution of their staff. Precisely. SignatureCheers, Harvey CanEng and BrEng, indiscriminately mixed Harvey Van Sickle and John Varela write (copyedited): >>> That's clearly what the sentence says. If you take out the >>> part set off by commas, you get: >>> >>> "China's ruling Communist Party is unlikely to allow Google to >>> avoid repercussions." >> I read that to mean that the Chinese government is threatening >> Google. If Google doesn't comply with Chinese law, Google will >> be unable to avoid the consequences: closure of their offices, >> blocking of their web site, even prosecution of their staff. > Precisely. Yes. Well, almost precisely. Since it says "unlikely", the actual meaning is that the Chinese government is *expected*, rather than *threatening*, to perform such actions. SignatureMark Brader | "Sir, your composure baffles me. A single counterexample Toronto | refutes a conjecture as effectively as ten... Hands up! msb@vex.net | You have to surrender." -- Imre Lakatos My text in this article is in the public domain. >> >"China s ruling Communist Party, wary of the Internet becoming >> >an uncontrolled forum for the country s 360million users, is [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I disagree with you and Ray on this. It's Google that wants to avoid >repercussions (retaliation by the Chinese government). S'OK if you disagree, but I can't see how China's government can think they can stop repercussions directed to Google. Read the sentence as "China's ruling Communist Party is unlikely to allow (the Chinese people to) Google (in order to) to avoid repercussions." and you'll come over to our side. SignatureTony Cooper - Orlando, Florida >> On Jan 26, 1:06 pm, tony cooper <tony_cooper...@earthlink.net> >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Chinese people to) Google (in order to) to avoid repercussions." and > you'll come over to our side. Read it as "China's ruling Communist Party is unlikely to allow Google (the corporation) to avoid (escape) repercussions." and you'll arrive at a different conclusion. It's badly worded (bad-worded?), which makes it impossible to be sure what the writer meant. SignatureJames |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2012 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.