132ccc2f   
   From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:19:32 -0700 (PDT), Helen Hall   
    wrote in   
      
   in rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   >> I still don't see it, frankly.  Someone from one of the   
   >> regions where the terms haven't been diluted could perfectly   
   >> well have raised the question in rasfc.  In particular,   
   >> Zeborah's post could have been made there: it wasn't exactly   
   >> inflammatory.  Better yet, somone could simply have asked   
   >> whether he'd really meant to say 'good doesn't mean   
   >> stereotypically gay'.  Resorting to rasfm too quickly may do   
   >> almost as much damage to rasfc in the long run as resorting   
   >> to it too slowly, and I thought that this was too quick.   
      
   >>> Sea Wasp's post had the safe effect on me.   
      
   >> I expect that it was at least somewhat startling to most of   
   >> the non-North American native speakers.  It was mildly   
   >> startling to me, though not for the same reason: that's not   
   >> his normal idiom.  That's why I took the quotation marks   
   >> seriously.   
      
   > Just wanted to say that I thought that Zeborah's decision   
   > to move it to rasfm was exactly right. The whole of this   
   > thread has been totally irrelevant to the writing of SF,   
   > it would not help any of us write a better SF story and   
   > thus it is far better here where we can discuss the   
   > incident to our hearts content without filling rasfc up   
   > with off- topic and possibly heated debate.   
      
   If the matter had been handled properly at the beginning, we   
   very likely wouldn't have had this miserable thread.   
      
   > I know that you didn't like the idea of rasfm,   
      
   That is not precisely true.   
      
   > but personally I feel it's working exceedingly well for   
   > exactly this kind of thing.   
      
   > What I can't understand is how adamant you are that   
   > Zeborah, Catja and I are wrong to find the words   
   > offensive. I accept your explanation that the words are   
   > pretty innocuous in the US, but that doesn't alter the   
   > fact that they are *not* innocuous to our ears. For some   
   > reason you don't seem prepared to acknowledge that fact.   
      
   Of course I acknowledge that fact!  I even said so in the   
   passage that you quoted above.  (For that matter, I was   
   pretty sure of the difference *before* this came up, though   
   I didn't know which way NZ English went.)  Nor do I think   
   that there's anything wrong with your finding the words   
   themselves offensive, and I really don't see how you're   
   getting that idea from what I've written.  And now I'm   
   afraid that I *am* a little irked.  Perhaps I'll try again   
   later to make myself clear; perhaps not.   
      
   Brian   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)