but gave no <details of the rules> it may have broken

< Previous | Next >

NewAmerica

Banned
Mandarin
I don't quite understand "details of the rules." Why not wrote "which rules"?

For example: Rule 1: No spamming. Rule 2: No blaspheming. "Which rules" would refer to "You've broken Rule 1. We now decide to shut down your website." But "details of the rules" appears to be different: Details like what is counted as behavior os spamming.

The question of this thread is: Does "but gave no <details of the rules> it may have broken" mean "but gave no acount about which rules> it may have broken"?

**************
Several foreign media beyond Beijing’s control, such as the Washington Post and The Guardian, have not been accessible online since last weekend, adding to a list of blocked sites that includes Reuters.

Online Chinese financial news publication Wallstreetcn.com said on Monday it took its website and mobile app offline at the authorities’ request, but gave no details of the rules it may have broken.



Source: Reuters
China launches new internet cleanup campaign; more websites blocked
 
Last edited:
  • Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    The question of this thread is: Does "but gave no <details of the rules> it may have broken" mean "but gave no acount about which rules> it may have broken"?
    Possibly, but "which rules" is a little more restrictive. "Which" would require a particular rule to be named, whereas "the" could be used for something more vague: "the rules about blasphemy", for example. Since they haven't given any details, I don't suppose it matters which word is used in this case, but "the" sounds fine to me.
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    So "but gave no details of the rules it may have broken" means "but (they simply said "you've broken the rules, yet) gave no details of the rules we may have broken"?

    Thank you. :idea:
     

    Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    It is Wallstreetcn.com who gave no details of the rules they may have broken. We don't know what the Chinese authorities told Wallstreetcn.com, except that they asked them to take their website and app offline.
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    Not "Chinese authorities gave no details of the rules Wallstreetcn.com may have broken"? If "It is Wallstreetcn.com who gave no details of the rules they may have broken," then it sounds Wallsreetcn may have indeed broken the rules. Thus, Chinese authorties' behavior sounds not that awful/foul.
     

    Uncle Jack

    Senior Member
    British English
    Not "Chinese authorities gave no details of the rules Wallstreetcn.com may have broken"?
    No. "But gave" shows that the subject of "gave" is the same as the previous clause. If it was the Chinese authorities who gave no details, then it would have to be "but they gave".
     

    kentix

    Senior Member
    English - U.S.
    Thus, Chinese authorties' behavior sounds not that awful/foul.

    And that comes back to the question of whether those rules should be rules in the first place. Since we don't know the alleged violations, we don't know if they are reasonable or unreasonable. The fact that mainline news organizations are being blocked suggests that they are unreasonable rules by our standards. Which is why knowing the details would be helpful. Wallstreetcn did not provide those details for us to make our own judgment.
     

    JulianStuart

    Senior Member
    English (UK then US)
    Reuters reported the story. They were told by Wallstreetcn that they had been asked by the authorities to take down their website. They did so but did not say anything more = gave no details about the request or which rules might hve been involved or how they might have broken them.
     

    NewAmerica

    Banned
    Mandarin
    The fact that mainline news organizations are being blocked suggests that they are unreasonable rules by our standards.
    :thumbsup: :thumbsup:

    Wallstreetcn did not provide those details for us to make our own judgment.
    Wallstreet knows very well those Western standards yet keeps silent about the details of the rules, isn't it very subtle? Perhaps it is holding a private meeting in its own meeting room to discuss the details?

    Reuters reported the story. They were told by Wallstreetcn that they had been asked by the authorities to take down their website. They did so but did not say anything more = gave no details about the request or which rules might hve been involved or how they might have broken them.
    The explanation is appropriate.
     
    < Previous | Next >
    Top