From: zeborah@gmail.com   
      
   J.J. O'Shea  wrote:   
      
   > On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 18:23:01 -0400, Patrick Baldwin wrote   
   > (in article ):   
   >   
   > > Elaine Thompson  wrote:   
   > >> On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 14:40:31 +0100,   
   > >> green_knight@greenknight.org.uk.invalid (Catja Pafort) wrote:   
   > >   
   > >>> Brian M. Scott wrote:   
   > >>>   
   > >>>> 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.   
   > >>>   
   > >>> I think that, when using terms that create a wide-ranging consensus as   
   > >>> to their offensiveness, a writer ought to be aware - particularly if the   
   > >>> term is as transparent as the one in question   
   > >   
   > >     I see no consensus.   
   > >   
   > >> See above.  It *isn't* transparent to speakers of various flavors of   
   > >> US English.  (I grew up in California, Brian is somewhere in the US,   
   > >> I'm not sure where, and Wasp is East Coast - NY, I think.)   
   > >   
   > >     Just as another data point:   
   > >   
   > >     Not blindingly obvious at all to me, and I'm in Massachusetts.   
   >   
   > Not blinding obvious to me either. Much ado about very little, in fact.  In   
   > Florida.   
      
   I believe at this point that there's a strong consensus that it's not   
   offensive in the US.  There seems however to be an equally strong   
   consensus that it is offensive in the UK and Australasia.  So while   
   "Much ado about very little" might be true in a US-only context, it's   
   not true in an international context.   
      
   Zeborah   
   --   
   Gravity is no joke.   
   http://www.geocities.com/zeborahnz/   
   rasfc FAQ:  http://www.lshelby.com/rasfcFAQ.html   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)