• Grammatical analysis help
    This is not my choice.

    It's absolutely incredible that this document is in English to begin with.     — boethius

    It is a bad praxis of public administration, indeed. Every public worker must act and communicate in the official languages of the country they are working in. This is why I thought you were the one asking for this procedure in English at first glance. It is very strange. I don't know the law of your country because I don't know where you are from, but in my country (Spain) it is illegal to make official requirements or communications in a language that the interlocutor cannot understand.
    It is true that you have English skills, BUT I personally think that the prosecutor acted with bad faith or at least with bad praxis. Can you ask your lawyer ask or inquire something related to this issue?

    So, the only explanation I can find is that it's in English for the benefit of other prosecutors, that writing in the official language with reference to the official law wouldn't make sense to people legally trained in that language — boethius

    Does the law of your country allow this kind of procedure?
  • Grammatical analysis help
    but my reading is that the statements in the middle are clearly written, at least in English, to heavily imply it is the author making the statement, and not the author reporting what I'm reporting. — boethius

    I am not a native speaker, but at least I understood the same and I guess I am following your point. The fact that a specific police department is conspiring against you.

    On the other hand, I can't understand why you want to use English in your procedure, or I am not seeing your strategy clearly. Yes, I read in one of your paragraphs that you use this language because it avoids ambiguity but it seems that it has ended up in the opposite. In addition, it is not clear to me if you are (or not) from a non-English speaker country. I am lost at this point: I mean, why you had started this procedure in English?

    On the main point of the issue: reporting crimes such as corruption or money laundering is a very serious issue. Keep in mind that in these crimes will be involved police departments, politicians, judges, prosecutors, etc... It is like opening up the Pandora box. Prepare yourself with the consequences, because all the dirty public workers will go against you.
    If I were you, I'd ask my lawyer for the possibility of getting protection because it seems (according to your OP) that they already know your name. Maybe a procedure similar to the Witness Security Program. Even your attorney has expressed not to reporting those crimes because of the dirty cops... I can only say: be careful, your life could be in danger. It is true that we all should report crimes, but... when is against the "system", the situation is complicated.
  • Uploading images
    ↪Mark Nyquist
    Pay your fees as a good contributor.
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    Whoever is called a great minister,
    when he finds that he cannot morally serve his prince, he resigns.     — Confucius, Analects: 9817
  • Right-sized Government
    How would you determine the right size? By population? — Vera Mont

    I think every state in the world uses this method. This is due to the main cause of a "democratic representative", thus the fact that we all are "represented" in the number of seats. I guess it is the fairest system. A government is big or small depending in the number of the population, because that's how the seats will be represented in the institutions.

    What is the optimal scope and power and responsibility for an effective government? — Vera Mont

    It is not about power but authority. Power can lead to corruption and breaking the law. A government with solid authorities has effectiveness. There are tons of examples regarding this issue, but where we can see it clearly is the way each state faced the Covid pandemic. In my humble opinion, Australia and the Aussie government were the most effective in this problem. They did not hesitate to block the frontiers and protect the citizens. The decisions were taken uniformly by all the governors, so here is a good example of effectiveness in a state. They are far away from bureaucracy.
  • Unjustified Skepticism
    I think I'm trying to say that language is not just for communicating data, but is critical to nearly everything about the way we live, because we are social animals. That brings a weakness, that it is possible to deceive us. But, in my book at least, that doesn't justify radical scepticism. — Ludwig V

    I agree. :up:

    Neutral data is very rare. — Ludwig V

    Maybe we can consider "neutral data" the International System of Units, for example. I guess using the metric system in communication cannot be affected by subjective thoughts or connotations. They are objective. For example, if I say: 1 metre equals 1000 mm. This is pure neutral data, because it is proven by maths.
  • Unjustified Skepticism
    Lies do not undermine the system because they can be detected. — Andrew4Handel

    How? Lies tend to be detected when the receiver already received the message, so an empirical analysis cannot be applied ex ante.

    When someone tells the truth and gives us information they prove that language transmits facts somehow. — Andrew4Handel

    I see the opposite. Words transmit facts, it is a given. But these facts are separated from "truth" or "false" because this is a subjective bias as I said previously. Our language has intrinsic information, but we manipulate it, to convince others with "truths" or "lies".
  • Unjustified Skepticism
    It is clear to me that language works. — Andrew4Handel
    I think once we accept that language transmits facts we have a basis for knowledge, a foundation for theorising etc and for some self confidence. — Andrew4Handel

    I agree.

    I do think this relies on empirical evidence so we don't need to believe everything a person says. — Andrew4Handel

    I do not agree.

    It is not possible to establish a communication with objective facts. From your OP, I highlight the importance of understanding the rules of a language: syntaxes, grammar, lexicon, etc...
    If I read a sign that says: "I live in the house with red door, a cherry tree in the garden and worn sign with a 12 on the door," I am receiving a pure objective information.

    But, If I am receiving that data from someone, there can be a lot of subjectivity and connotation bias. I mean, the words do exist themselves, yes. Yet, we can make a twisted use of them and lie to others. So, I see the opposite of your point: we have to believe others to make decisions and keep up the communication.
  • Where Philosophy Went Wrong
    "Ever tried. Ever failed. No matter. Try Again. Fail again. Fail better." ~Beckett — 180 Proof

    :up:
  • Philosophy of Law; Legislation, Access to Just Remedy, Application of Rights, Legal deliberation.
    I'm not aware of a philosophy of law (e.g. property) that does not presuppose a political philosophy (e.g. republicanism). Are you? — 180 Proof

    Good point.

    I have two examples where philosophy of law does not presuppose a political philosophy:

    Nationality. Everyone, since we born, have a nationality. This right is respected and guaranteed worldwide because it is attached to human's existence. It doesn't depend on the fluctuations of political conflicts or changes. For example: I am Spanish and I will be until my death, unless I decide to switch it for other different. Even if a dictatorship decides to "remove" my nationality (I think this is impossible since I was born in Spanish territory...), I will be stateless, a special condition, similar to the nationality itself.

    Lex rei sitae. Thus, every real estate is ruled by the law of the place where it is located. None government can change this. 
  • Philosophy of Law; Legislation, Access to Just Remedy, Application of Rights, Legal deliberation.
    ↪180 Proof
    I see your point, 180 proof.

    But here is where I disagree:
    just as legal theory (or law-making) is subordinate to – dependent upon – political science (or politics). — 180 Proof

    It is true that the law's approval depends on Congress and Senate. But this fact doesn't mean that "political science" is above the interpretation of law.
    I see Philosophy of Law as sui generis. The unique organ responsible for the interpretation of laws is the Supreme Court, not the politicians. The judges interpret both natural and positive law, not politics. Maybe inside public laws is hardly to see, but in private laws or regulations is more clear. If you and I celebrate an agreement of the leasing (for example), the interpretation of duties, payments, obligations, etc... depends on the Philosophy of Law.

    We can use a lot of examples which come from Roman law, such as "Quod Nullum est, nullum effectum producit"; "Salva rerum substantia"; "Cessio pro solvendo" etc... all of those, at least, I see them as clear examples of Philosophy of Law.
  • Philosophy of Law; Legislation, Access to Just Remedy, Application of Rights, Legal deliberation.
    No. Tne philosophy of law is just plumbing in the fortress of political philosophy. — 180 Proof

    I disagree.

    Philosophy of law is the principal cause that regulates the relationship between the citizens of a state. Both privately (mortgages, agreements, wills, "pacta sunt servanda", etc ...) and publicly (the regulation of taxes, nationality, rights of immigrants and refugees,  constitution...)

    The real issue in this context is how politicians use the law just for personal ambitions. It is a degradation of regulation and positive law. But this premise doesn't mean that law reinforces the fortress of politics because the real nature of law should be the opposite: limiting the government.
  • Guest Speaker: Noam Chomsky
    Since Noam Chomsky is an expert on the philosophy of language, my question is related to that topic.

    Professor Chomsky, Does language exclude specific groups of people? 
    There is a big debate in some countries about changing the vocabulary and grammar with the aim of making it more inclusive. 
    For example: In Spanish, we have gender endings like "niña" and "niño", but some want to switch them to "niñe" because the ending in "e" is more inclusive and neutral.

    What is your opinion regarding this issue?
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    I asked to chat GPT the same topic. It is interesting because it seems that the AI defends the fact that words are neutral.

    I thought it would be interesting to read, so I copy and paste the conversation in this thread:

    Me: Does vocabulary have negative connotations?

    GPT: No, vocabulary itself does not have negative connotations. Vocabulary refers to the set of words known and used by a person or in a language, and it is a neutral term.

    However, the way in which someone uses their vocabulary, or the connotations of specific words within a language, can have negative connotations. For example, if someone uses their vocabulary to belittle or insult others, or if certain words in a language are associated with negative stereotypes or discrimination, then those specific uses or connotations may have negative connotations.

    Overall, it is important to remember that words themselvesare not inherently good or bad, but rather the way in which they are used and the context in which they are used can give them positive or negative connotations.

    Me: How can a word be neutral?

    GPT: A word can be neutral if it does not inherently carry a positive or negative connotation or meaning. Some words are simply descriptive and do not carry any emotional or evaluative content. For example, words like "table," "chair," "book," "tree," and "cloud" are neutral because they describe objects without expressing any positive or negative sentiment.

    In addition, some words can have multiple meanings, and their connotation or meaning can depend on the context in which they are used. For example, the word "hard" can be used to describe something that is difficult or firm, but it does not inherently carry a positive or negative connotation.

    Overall, whether a word is neutral or not depends on the context and the way in which it is used. Words themselves do not have inherent positive or negative meanings, but their connotations and meanings can be influenced by factors such as culture, personal experience, and societal norms.

    But then I asked the tricky word: buffoon. :snicker:

    Me: Why does the word "buffoon" have a negative connotation?

    GPT: The word "buffoon" has a negative connotation because it is typically used to describe someone who behaves in a ridiculous or foolish manner, often for the amusement of others. The term is often associated with someone who is clumsy, inept, or lacking in intelligence or social skills. The term can also be used to describe someone who intentionally behaves in an absurd or foolish way, in order to gain attention or to make others laugh at them.

    The negative connotation of the word "buffoon" comes from the fact that such behavior is often seen as unbecoming or inappropriate in certain situations, such as in a formal setting or when dealing with serious issues. Furthermore, the term can be used in a derogatory manner to insult or belittle someone, particularly if they are seen as lacking in dignity or self-respect.

    It's important to note that while the word "buffoon" does have a negative connotation, it is still a neutral term in the sense that it is simply a descriptive word used to characterize certain types of behavior. The negativity associated with the term comes from the way it is used and the context in which it is used, rather than any inherent negativity in the word itself.
  • English Words mixing Contexts
    ↪Judaka
    Good and substantial OP. My bad that I discovered it eleven days later.

    I think the problem of mixing up the meaning of words and context happens in every language. At least, our languages come from Latin, so it is easier to get rid of confusion. There is an important "wave" of people who want to change the lexicon of words because of this.  I was even using Google Translate for a second to write this post, and Google said: This translation contains gender meanings, use the correct form to avoid confusions. Interesting, indeed.

    On the other hand, the chance of mixing contexts is more possible in languages based on ideogram, such as Japanese and Chinese. Both languages have the same script. For example: "moon" is written "月" but in Chinese is said "yuè", and in Japanese "Tsuki". Furthermore of the meaning of the word, the context plays a big role here because "月" also means month, classifier of the month.

    Is there any language that is universally accepted so doesn't depend on context at all? Maybe the metrical system is free of context. International System of Units, establishes universal names and symbols to avoid mixing contexts. For example: Second (s); metre (m); kilogram (k); etc... I think these words really represent a "concept" in science. What do you think?
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    ↪Jamal
    I know it and I have read it. Osamu Dazai was one of the top Japanese writers, and I always recommend his novels and short stories. More than a novel, The Flowers of Buffoonery, is a short story included in another novel called: "No Longer Human."
    It is interesting because the novel you referred to has the most approximate translation in both English and Spanish because in my edition it says:"flores de bufonería." :flower:

    A top writer! I recommend you his works! :up:

    07sk60q27ktc7652.jpg
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    The idea of having formal and informal words is a core part of that language, and there are many ways of saying the same thing which have very different meanings due to the level of formality. — Judaka

    I agree.

    But it is important to highlight that the meaning of a word changes among different generations. This is why Ishihara referred to Koreans as "sangokujin", He explained that is how they described Korean people living in Japan in his time. I am not pretending to defend him, because it is clear that he is a racist politician. I have read a lot of him, and he was a proud nationalist. Yet, my point goes beyond.

    "Sangokujin" is a normal word in Japanese, but some use it in a twisted manner. Shintaro Ishihara used it in this way, no doubts on that. But, if a Korean or foreigner goes to a public institution in Japan and reads the word "Sangokujin", it will be weird to get offended because they are literally foreigners.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    A whole series of words have been applied to Americans who originated in Africa : niggers, negroes, colored(s), — BC

    As I explained to Jamal, this word comes from Spanish, actually. It was used by Spanish sailors to refer to African people. The word is "negro," and some sailors mispronounced it when they said "negroe." Nowadays, it is considered offensive in Spanish, so we just say "African."

    On the other hand, I agree with your points. Stupidity takes place when some persons are obsessed with changing all the vocabulary of a language because they think everything is offensive. I am against those arguments, and I already pointed out why in another thread. Nonetheless, I think that the real problem here is how some people use words in a twisted manner.
    It will only be"offensive" if the interlocutor is acting in bad faith. Thus, when it is clear that the word was used with the aim of hurting someone, attending to the context.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    and the N-word (not against the rules to mention this word explicitly in quotes but I find myself unable to do it) — Jamal

    To be honest, I wanted to use the N-word as an example in my thread. But I am completely aware that is very negative and racist. The etymology of the word comes from Spanish in the colonial era, and it was copied by British sailors and pirates. Nowadays, this word is no longer in use, except for racist people. We only say "africano" = African.

    But it seems to me that “buffoon” has an essential double character and that we’d lose something if it became entirely positive. — Jamal

    Agree!  I cannot add more to your argument.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    So, the interesting question for me is: can a word find positive connotations through its negative connotations? — Jamal

    Wow, good question Jamal.

    I think yes, it is possible to do so. But it will depend a lot on the context and how the word is socially accepted nowadays. @Judaka set a good example towards the word "nerd." Back in the day, it had negative connotations, but it seems that the modern use is positive. This word shows the fact that the meaning has switched over the past few years, and if this happens, it is something that depends on us.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    . It may also be due to human's natural tendency to be interested in the negatives over the positives, not sure. — Judaka

    :up:

    I don't think there's a problem with words being mostly negative either, why do you think so? — Judaka

    More than a problem, I see it as a bad interpretation of the words. What I intended to do is make a research into the etymology of some words such as "buffoon", "blackmail", or the Japanese word "sankokujin" as appears in the OP. Most of them are old words and if we study the "real" or "neutral" meaning, it seems to don't have any problems.

    The problem begins (in my humble opinion) when people make a twisted use of such words because "buffoon" is just a mediaeval clown, but we interpret someone who is a fool.
    The same happens with "sankokujin". It just refers to people from Korea but somehow it is discriminatory towards them, etc...
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    At the same time this is also self-mockery, implying that I and others are fools, and in our foolishness we want to be known as buffoons. It’s dialectical. — Jamal

    I agree with your point. But that's how we interpret "buffoon" or "jester" in modern times, as Baden already posted previously. Yet, this is the main problem I wanted to explain in this thread. Why did these words end up in such a negative feeling?
    Nowadays, calling someone a buffoon is an insult.

    I did a research and a buffoon (also known as a court jester) was considered as a "member of the household of a nobleman or a monarch employed to entertain guests during the medieval and Renaissance eras". Nonetheless, you are right in the fact that modern use has negative connotations, because the paper says: The term is now frequently used in a derogatory sense to describe someone considered foolish, or someone displaying inappropriately vulgar, bumbling or ridiculous behavior which is a source of general amusement.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    Dearest Javi, please don't go there! Blackmail doesn't have racist denotations or connotations any more than "black hole", "black board", "black top", or "black beans" have. — BC

    BC! I think my misinterpretation of the word "blackmail" comes from an article I had read a few months ago: Words and phrases you may want to think twice about using.
    Blackmail, blacklist and black sheep
    "The issue here is that these are all negative terms," said Joseph Smith, an anti-racism trainer and educator. "[It] connotes evil, distrust, lack of intelligence, ignorance, a lack beauty — the absence of white." "[Black] became associated with a particular group of people, and that group of people received all that negative connotation. That's why we try to move away from these kinds of terms."
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    ↪Judaka
    Good points.

    I noted that most of the time the words tend to have more negative connotations than positive ones. Buffoon and nerd are good examples, as you explained, even if the latter has been changing during the years and now has another significance. What I tried to understand is why some basic words like those, are used to hurt the feelings of someone. Vocabulary is supposed to be neutral, but it seems that we use it in a twisted way.

    On the other hand, I agree with the fact that some words are just negative by nature. It is impossible to make neutral use of it. There is a big debate on the word "blackmail", because apart from being a negative action, it has racist connotations.
    It is clear that with words like blackmail, there is no possibility to argue, but the real problem is that most of the words have more negative feelings than positive ones.

    For these kinds of words, people may instead try to argue against the application of the word instead. — Judaka

    I guess this is not the solution either. Skipping the use of a word needs a lot of tasks to do. It is necessary to change all the culture of society. I think it would be easier to be cautious of using them.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    ↪Jamal
    That's exactly the most interesting aspect of vocabulary. Each word has a meaning in our dictionary. Yet, it seems that we interpret the words differently and depend more on the context. My guess goes to that the definition of a word in a dictionary is just a neutral concept, but the philosophical or spiritual meaning of such words depends on the communication between us.
    Most of the words have both positive and negative connotations then.
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    whereas "buffoon" (sense is usually something like "stupid clown") is generally derogatory and "jester" (sense is usually something like "amusing / clever clown") is generally complimentary. — Baden

    I just learned this important difference. Interesting how different words have varied meanings while they come from the same root, the etymology of the word "buffoon".

    But anyhow, cautiousness and nuance are your friends here. — Baden

    I agree! Choosing the correct words is key to maintaining a good conversation or writing, because some persons can get offended even we are not acting in bad faith using whatever words. :up:
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    There's no "pure meaning", it's just that we have to interpret words in the context they're used. — Baden

    I agree with you. Context is important for interpreting words and some as "buffoon" may have a lot of meanings. Then, in this case, it depends on how we interpret it. Yet, I am perceiving that, words are usually interpreted in a negative way. I think (just guessing because I do not have statistics to prove it) that words as buffoon are used to disrespect someone, even when it is clear that it is separated from its real significance.
    Is not possible to use words in a neutral point?
  • Does vocabulary have negative connotations?
    Yes. — Fooloso4

    Why? Does apply to every single word?

    The careful use of language does not result in a language free of connotations. — Fooloso4

    Well, my aim in this thread is not to avoid connotations, but see language in the most objective way possible. There are a lot of words in our language, and it seems that some of them are offensive or have negative connotations. Nonetheless, this is my concern. Why do they have negative feelings? I think it is just our interpretation rather than the pure meaning of the word.
  • Philosophical implications of contacting higher intelligences through AI-powered communication tools
    Why in the name of Beetlejuice would a higher intelligence want to conquer us? (Because it's what we do?) — Vera Mont

    Whether you like it or not, that's how most of the interactions tend to be. As I said previously, the human race has always acted aggressively, not using diplomacy. Why would those higher intelligences do otherwise?
    By the way, if they are not the first in attacking, our military forces would do the job for them. This is a given.
  • Philosophical implications of contacting higher intelligences through AI-powered communication tools
    ↪Vera Mont
    I wore a mask during the pandemic too (as much as most of the citizens in this world). Yet, I think this example is different from the point I want to make because Covid is a virus that we have in control. We wore masks because of the fear of being infected. This fear was created - in part - by the mass media.
    It is not the same when we talk about military strategies. If higher intelligences do not want to conquer us because of our unknown behavior, it means that they are not powerful enough.
  • Philosophical implications of contacting higher intelligences through AI-powered communication tools
    ↪Vera Mont
    Interesting reasons.

    I think being cautious could be the main reason. It is a proven fact that humanity (at least the political organization) of our world is violent, not diplomatic. Maybe they see us as someone who is dangerous and they do not want to get closer. Yet, this theory considers "higher intelligences" as cowards.

    the decision to terminate us is not yet final; — Vera Mont

    I agree with this futuristic probability. Only if we weren't destroyed ourselves first because of climate change and wars...
  • Philosophical implications of contacting higher intelligences through AI-powered communication tools
    If humanity does make contact with a higher intelligence, through the use of AI-powered communication tools, what sort of philosophical implications does that have for humanity? — Bret Bernhoft

    Why don't they contact us too? It will be a difficult task. I think it not only depends on having the ability to contact a higher intelligence, but the clue if they would or would not understand us. Philosophy of language could have a big implication here.
    The interaction with other intelligent lives through AI chats will be frustrating if we do not achieve a common language for such cause previously.
  • TPF Quote Cabinet
    At your age, if you are single and do not have an address, it is understandable that you lack confidence in society... right? — Yukio Mishima.
  • A life without wants
    What would a life without any wants look like? — schopenhauer1

    A life without fear of dying. If you don't want anything and you don't have any purpose in life, why would you keep living?
  • Currently Reading
    I don't know if you saw this: — T Clark

    Very interesting. Thank you for sharing the link with me. :up:
  • Taxes
    So, in low capacity states part of the problem is that resource revenues aren't even fully realized because they cannot regulate extraction and armed groups take control of resources. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    So, here it is states having poor public management because of their high revenues, rather than the other way around. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Good points and clear argument. That's why I think the only way to solve the problems of those countries is to look into ethics, rather than just taxation. Collecting money from the richest is important and it causes positive effects. Yet, there are a lot of factors which we have to consider. You put the Democratic Republic of the Congo as an example. Well, this Central African country is a failed state, so we cannot expect that much from their public management. Their GDP is $128 billion, but the Human Development Index is low, 0.479.
    Mobutu institutionalized corruption to prevent political rivals from challenging his control, leading to an economic collapse in 1996. Mobutu allegedly stole up to US$4 billion while in office (War, Hunger, and Displacement: The Origins of Humanitarian Emergencies. Nafziger, E. Wayne; Raimo Frances Stewart, 2000)
    ...
    Imagine how much development could be accomplished with US$4 billion, right?
  • Taxes
    like the DRC due to bad corruption enforcement, sure, but also because government employees don't get paid for long periods and so bribes are their only means of supporting themselves. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Exactly. This is the point I wanted to share in this thread. If the accounts of the state are in deficit and they even collect low taxes... how do they maintain literally everything? Well, the paper I have read explains that in some countries like Moldova they are just used to such living. Between 1999 and 2002, this country did ambitious tax reform. Yes, it had positive effects, but the problem is still there. There is empirical evidence that rich firms and lobbies can pay bribes in other circumstances, making an imbalance in the effort of collecting to taxes. Then, it creates a vicious circle that seems to not have an ending. How can we help those citizens? Do their institutions need to be managed by others?

    And of course you can actually pay your employees easier if you collect more taxes. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    I disagree and there is empirical evidence that proves exactly the contrary. Paying public employees depends more on the management of public spending, not on collecting more or less taxes. We can perceive millions or even trillions thanks to taxation, but if we live in a dictatorship, what is the "real" value of those digits? I guess this is the problem that exists in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Qatar, etc...

    I personally think the OECD needs some sort of tax alliance for individuals and organizations that can help enforce taxation across wealthy nations and small tax havens. — Count Timothy von Icarus

    Good purpose, but I see more chances not to achieve it. In the European Union, there is supposedly a "common" law and market. But, in practice and real life, each country holds its own competence and some countries are soft in taxation and others heavy. For example: the Spanish company "Ferrovial" just changed their headquarters to the Netherlands because of taxation. Are they evil? Should the Spanish government do something in this matter? What about the freedom to choose whatever country for your headquarters?
    There is a lot of complexity regarding this issue, and many authors and experts have debated about it since 1648 when the "modern" state was born.
  • Are you receiving email notifications for private messages?
    @Jamal The problem has been fixed. I followed the path to setting up bookmarked conversations, and yes, I got notified in the email that Alkis Piskas wrote me a private message. :up:
  • Are you receiving email notifications for private messages?
    So if you haven't bookmarked a conversation, you won't receive notifications of new replies. This dissolves the problem, I think — Jamal

    Ok, clear and understood. I bookmarked our conversation and clicked on getting notified when a bookmarked conversation is updated. I guess it will work out now.
  • Are you receiving email notifications for private messages?
    ↪Jamal
    Thank you so much for your effort to work this out. I like the message, now it is time to wait for PlushForums support's answer.
    For the moment, you have won a bottle of Andalusian olive oil. :blush:
Home » javi2541997