[thelist] Angora socks comment on DJC article

[Hugh Blair]

Jack, you're right.  I misused the word "slander".  

But when you said "...the biggest load of lard ever perpetuated on 
the American people by the Christian Right.", I read that as:

1.  You think the "Christian Right" are a bunch of fools,
2.  You want to point out that they are foolish enough to
    propagate a message of this sort, because
3,  You think that there is no "security hole" in the 
    previous NS release.

You *sure* are entitled to your opinions - I'll defend your
continued exercise of those rights.  But if I was a member
of the "Christian Right" I would be offended.  That's the
word - personally offended.  Your message elucidating your
thoughts on this "security hole" could have been just effective
without offending any person or group.  Your right to those
opinions does not extend to having a right to post it to this
list or its web page.

I could believe that all people from the "Schonchin" family
are clueless (for the record, *I DON'T*) but I wouldn't have
written "perpetuated on the American people by the clueless
Schonchin Family."  That leans toward personal (or group) 
denigration.  I just don't think this list and its web site 
should be a venue for those kind of thoughts and ideas.  

Not that you might care, but I won't be a part of a group
or read and visit sites that have offensive language.

So, I retract the word "slander" and replace it with
"offend".  BTW, the socks reference was LOL funny.

-Hugh

> -----Original Message-----
> [mailto:thelist-admin at lists.evolt.org]On Behalf Of Jack Schonchin
> Subject: RE: [thelist] Angora socks comment on DJC article
> 
> --- Hugh Blair <hblair at bigfoot.com> wrote:
> > I think it should be removed - for only one reason.
> > 
> > It tries to slander one group of people, a religeous
> > group.  Socks?  Who cares.
> 
>   Please learn the meaning of the word "slander."
> First, I'd be interested in knowing how you slander a
> large, vaguely defined group of people. Second, no one
> in their right mind would have taken my comments as
> literal. It was clearly a parody. Disapproving of the
> parody and slander are two different things.