From: b.scott@csuohio.edu   
      
   On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 15:58:05 +1200, Zeborah   
    wrote in   
    in   
   rec.arts.sf.misc:   
      
   [...]   
      
   > All I've been saying is that the words are easily   
   > construed as offensive.   
      
   I'm quite willing to believe that that's all that you   
   intended to say, but it's not what you've seemed to me to be   
   saying.  However, we may mean different things by that   
   assertion; see below.   
      
   [...]   
      
   >> And yes, I do think that it could have been done in   
   >> rasfc.   
      
   > No, my post was too likely to generate controversy.   
      
   This is apparently a fundamental disagreement.   
      
   [...]   
      
   >> It seems to me that you are assuming that the problem is on   
   >> the writer's end and refusing to consider the possibility   
   >> that it might be on the reader's end.  Perhaps it *is* on   
   >> the writer's end -- I don't claim to know for sure what Sea   
   >> Wasp actually had in mind -- but it seems a bit ungenerous   
   >> to assume so when one can ask.   
      
   > I've lost track: are you here talking about the quotation   
   > marks or about the offensiveness of the words?   
      
   I'm talking about what he wrote -- words, quotation marks,   
   what you know of him from having read his posts for years,   
   the whole shebang.  Are you saying that you're objecting to   
   the words themselves, irrespective of their context?!   
      
   I have no useful comment on your response to my post with   
   the numbered footnotes, and my response to Aqua says most of   
   what I might have chosen to say in response to your comments   
   on my answer to Suzanne (do I owe someone a syn-tax for that   
   one?).   
      
   Brian   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)