From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 10:24:04 +1000, Aqua   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   > Brian M. Scott wrote:   
      
   [...]   
      
   >> If the matter had been handled properly at the beginning,   
   >> we very likely wouldn't have had this miserable thread.   
      
   > I don't think this is the kind of subject where arguments   
   > like "if the  matter had been handled properly at the   
   > beginning" are remotely  constructive, but only serve to   
   > make the situation more heated.   
      
   It isn't an argument.  It's a straightforward statement of   
   opinion.  I think that it's very likely that if someone had   
   simply asked Sea Wasp whether he really meant to say 'good   
   doesn't mean stereotypically ',   
   one of two things would have happened.  With a little luck,   
   those who didn't already know would have discovered that the   
   words in question carry very different freight in different   
   varieties of English, those who didn't recognize what Wasp   
   was doing (if I've guessed right about that) would have   
   discovered that what he was saying actually made sense, and   
   the matter would have been settled quickly and harmlessly.   
   With bad luck it would have turned out that the quotation   
   marks were misleading, and he was speaking in his own voice   
   (or at least for himself); that would have been very   
   unfortunate and might have led to *an* argument, but it   
   certainly wouldn't have led to *this* argument.   
      
   [...]   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   > I agree you should maybe take a little break, because I'm   
   > another who's  found it very difficult to see how you're   
   > acknowledging just how offensive the words are to some   
   > of us, and it's quite surprised me because you're   
   > usually very good about these things.   
      
   I understand that they are very offensive to you; I simply   
   don't think that this justifies ignoring the context in   
   which they appeared, and from where I sit, that's what seems   
   to have happened.  Does it help any if I explain that by and   
   large words are for me at most mildly offensive in and of   
   themselves, generally (if at all) because I find them vulgar   
   or coarse, and that true offense -- for me, again -- comes   
   only from context or perceived intent?  That I'd like to   
   think that I'd still concentrate on context and perceived   
   intent even if I had stronger emotional reactions to the   
   words themselves?   
      
   Brian   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)