From: try.not.to@but.see.sig   
      
   On Wed, 24 Sep 2008 22:20:39 -0400, David Friedman wrote   
   (in article ):   
      
   > In article   
   > <4ebb922c-348a-47ec-8b6d-b854d84b41a9@k30g2000hse.googlegroups.com>,   
   >  Helen Hall  wrote:   
   >   
   >>> Terminology that some people find offensive is often terminology that's   
   >>> emotively effective, so the question of when and whether one ought to   
   >>> use it is relevant to the writing of SF. It's part of the broader issue   
   >>> of the tension between wanting not to offend readers and moving readers   
   >>> emotionally.   
   >>>   
   >> But that's not what this thread has been about. This thread has been   
   >> about an apparent refusal to acknowledge that the words are far more   
   >> offensive to some speakers of English than to others and that they   
   >> were therefore a bad choice with hindsight. This is not actually to do   
   >> with using words effectively, quite the reverse.   
   >>   
   >> The reason this thread is becoming grumpy is due to the refusal by   
   >> some people to agree that the phrases were ill-chosen when writing for   
   >> an international audience.   
   >>   
   >> To make matters worse (and this is what's now niggling me and perhaps   
   >> the other objectors), those defending the usage and dismissing our   
   >> objections as trivial are putting themselves in a superior position   
   >> and basically giving higher priority to the US English usage over   
   >> other nations' usage. As you can well imagine, this is something of a   
   >> hot button.   
   >>   
   >>> Indeed, Zeborah's rant a few posts back provides a good example. She was   
   >>> writing things designed to be offensive, as a way of lending emotional   
   >>> impact to a real argument. That, at least, is how I read it.   
   >>>   
   >> Yes, she was doing that quite deliberately. The phrases we're debating   
   >> were not so chosen. ...   
   >   
   > They may not have been chosen to give offense, but they were surely   
   > chosen to be emotively effective, so I think it is (part of) what the   
   > thread is about.   
   >   
   >   
      
   The tactical use of language is what a writer does. Overreacting to such   
   usage rather makes his point.   
      
   --   
   email to oshea dot j dot j at gmail dot com.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)