This site uses cookies.
Some of these cookies are essential to the operation of the site,
while others help to improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used.
For more information, please see the ProZ.com privacy policy.
... and quoting past peer comments is just a misguided, uncalled-for attempt at directing our attention away from the discussion at hand. Plus, your insinuations fall way short of any constructive approach to discussing things. How you arrive at equating the notion of "difference" with that of a "synonym" escapes me. Care to elaborate without assuming hidden agendas on the part of other contributors?
...is commonly known as a "synonym", a familiar tactic of past and present "guessers" and "duplicators"... See the similarity...? And "professionality", Steffen, begins with at least adhering to your very own statement on 'community etiquette'... Is it now self-contradiction quickly followed up by a hoisting of the white flag....?
As Ramey said earlier, I'd very much appreciate getting back to courteous, professional, rules-compliant and constructive, rather than destructive, ways of discussing matters. Can't be that difficult, or so I believe ... (reading too much into things seldom helps)
Ramey Rieger (X)
Deutschland
Furthermore
09:52 May 15, 2020
3.4 The only acceptable means of commenting on another's answer is by using the peer comment feature. Using the discussion area, the answer posting form or the answer explanation box to comment on another's suggestions is not allowed. 3.5 A peer comment must be based on linguistic evaluations of the answer. These linguistic considerations must be provided in the case of a disagree or neutral comment. Personal comments are not allowed in peer comments. Backing up peer comments with references, in general, is encouraged.
....your entry is a duplicate, which does not meet the KudoZ standard of "...including references and explanations..." And it's certainly not the first time this topic has been raised! It's all there timestamped, in black & white and which no contortions of facts or KudoZ rule citations will alter...
Ramey Rieger (X)
Deutschland
For the record:
09:36 May 15, 2020
1. I posted the noun, not the verb. 2. The supposed reiteration of a suggestion already given occured minutes after I posted my suggestion. 3. Kudoz rules: 3.6 No attempt may be made to influence others' decisions. Encouraging an asker to choose one's own suggested translation, or peers to agree with one's own answers and/or disagree with answers provided by others, is prohibited. 3.7 Commentary on askers or answerers, and their postings or decisions to post, is not allowed. Comments or insinuations concerning an answerer's or asker's experience or profile, his/her decision to post a certain question or answer, grade or close a question in a certain way, make a certain glossary entry, etc., are strictly prohibited (whether posted publicly, made directly to the person in question, or made to another site user).
So, can we now get back to being courteous and professional?
...that Steffen is now "agreeing" with what he himself terms a "guess".... No references, no supporting quotes nor links, plus the untenable inclusion of (more guesswork) "preferred weight"...?
Added to here: Besides which, "target sample weight.." had already been entered beforehand.... Whereas KudoZ rules require, "...including references and explanations..." in cases of [cough, cough] 'duplicate entries'....
Zustimmung (Netto): +1