132ccc2f   
   From: john@jfeldredge.com   
      
   On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 12:19:32 -0700, Helen Hall wrote:   
      
   > On 22 Sep, 19:52, "Brian M. Scott"  wrote:   
   >> On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 16:09:53 +0100, Catja Pafort   
   >>  wrote 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.   
   >>   
   >> Brian   
   >   
   > 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. I know that you didn't like the idea of   
   > rasfm, 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.   
      
   Speaking as a gay American man, I also find the term "pansy-ass nancy-   
   boy" offensive.  Unfortunately, this sort of exaggerately-masculine   
   posturing is fairly common in the USA.   
      
   --   
   John F. Eldredge -- john@jfeldredge.com   
   PGP key available from http://pgp.mit.edu   
   "Reserve your right to think, for even to think wrongly is better   
   than not to think at all." -- Hypatia of Alexandria   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)