Ahem, Pre-emptive dismissals notwithstanding, I see no differance at all between a certain preferred term hereabouts ("trolls") and froggies. Bigoted? Doubtful. Cruel? Hardly. Hateful? Depends upon the usage. When the Simpsons ran an image of Frenchmen transformed into frogs, was this the moral equivalent of napalm? Somehow I'm unconvinced. But divisive? You bet. It divides those who agree with providing passports to Saddam's regime, selling nuclear reactor's to Saddam with clear knowledge as to why he wanted one, breaking international law by buying supposed food-for-oil petroleum on the blackmarket, bribing countries into voting against the US, etc. etc., and those who don't. Who gives a rat's sphincter if something is divisive? If you are doing something I believe is wrong, terribly wrong, then it is far more evil to play the popular a-morality game and simply tacitly approve by way of silence or postured doublespeak. Far better to make clear your disapproval by way of a bit of namecalling. Better still to take action. And why, pray tell, does this "rule" of yours (that "it is not even remotely okay") seem to only apply one-sidedly? Why is it okay to, say, label our President stupid, or for that matter, even a given author? I can only assume people are not stooping to petty, unfounded namecalling, but merely namecalling based on observations of his decisions and garbled public speaking. "Froggies" strikes me as the moral equivalent, despite it's broader target. Some have decided that the French were only interested in protecting their oil imports and derelict international status, and they base that decision on France's decisions and actions. I think the evidence weighs very strongly that they were behaving in a purely self-serving, criminal fashion. Far, far more bigoted, cruel, hateful, and downright immoral is using one's intellectual gifts to arrive at the predetermined conclusion that war, occupation, nation building is always and ever wrong except when countries other than the US participate (read Ivory Coast), and infinitely worse is to continue in this bankruptcy after thousands upon thousands are dug up in mass graves. Yes, surely it would have been better to allow such practices to continue. When the body count for "peace" (that is continued pretense of the ignorance of evil acts) is higher than that of war, how can you NOT condemn the frogs but enjoy othering the trolls? Generation of vipers. I find remarkable the self control the international community has exersized with regard to our erstwhile allies. It seems you'd have us refrain from othering NAZIs and Stalinists too. The poor souls. So why, Nancy, is othering offensive when applied to a group rather than an individual? Do we not other criminals every day? May I not refer to "those bastards" behind bars? Jailbirds? I believe them to be guilty despite the fact that some may someday be freed. And the bulk of them are, indeed, bastards. And with Chirac enjoying upwards of 70 percent approval for his oil deals dressed in the noble robes of peace, I find it equally appropriate to refer to the French bastards. My apologies to those French who did not support their corrupt leaders. Kate shall kiss you and magically transform you back into princes. In Greece, I listened to a tirade of a professor from Northern Greece as he condemned the US for everything but Waterloo. He was unable to say the word American without its requisite adjective "bastards." Nonetheless he was a likeable fellow who offered to buy my meal on the train. I was mature enough to discern that his beef was with my government, in the main, and even were it not, he's entitled to his opinion that we're all bastards but still worth buying a meal. And considering the meal tickets Greece, Turkey, and most other countries have ever enjoyed courtesy of the U.S., that's probably just fine. Let me guess? Was dodgeball a rough time for you? Cheers, Justin -------Original Message------- From: T. S. Eliot Discussion forum. Date: Saturday, June 14, 2003 8:23:04 PM To: [log in to unmask] Subject: OT Anti-human Well, I anticipate a barrage of nasty replies, but this message is too offensive to pass in silence. Russell was very right but too kind. And it is about a simple principle that treating any whole group of people with contempt and crude othering is a form of hate. It is important to say that this is not even remotely ok: it is bigoted, cruel, hateful, divisive, the kind of ideology that destroys. And the mockery and self-congratulatory sniping this will no doubt evoke will not make it anything else. Nancy Date sent: Sat, 14 Jun 2003 17:30:32 -0700 Send reply to: "T. S. Eliot Discussion forum." <[log in to unmask]> From: scott richardson <[log in to unmask]> Subject: Re: OT Anti To: [log in to unmask] Russ, Whats the big huff about froggies being so offensive a term? I hear language more coarse than that every day and so do you. Froggies isn't a word I typically use unless I preface it with an adjective or phrase such as cowardly or pure bred imbecilic. I more commonly describe my fellow humans of Franco ancestry as "cheese eating peace monkeys." Kate, we rejects from the Stevens list have to stick together. I'll come to your aid even if you may not deserve it. I owe you that much. Your beautiful precious post awhile back confusing pounds and lbs made me laugh and giggle all day. What innocence! I showed it to everybody in our office. We all loved it. Somehow it got me thinking about Shakesperez A Comedy of Errors and also the old Laurel and Hardy (or was it Abbot and Costello?) routine Who's on First. I consider it the most brilliant entertaining prose I've read in quite some time ranking right up there with Mr. Blessinger's fantasy of being conjoined at the throat to Peter Montgomery. Well I suppose I'll receed back into the world of lurkers...Talk at you good people in 6 months or so, Bono Rocks, Scott Richardson Pray for the peace of Jerusalem: "May those who love you be secure. May there be peace within your walls and security within your citadels." For the sake of my brothers and friends, I will say, "Peace be within you." For the sake of the house of the LORD our God, I will seek your prosperity. Psalm 122:6-9 A Song of Ascents of David Mayne Russell <[log in to unmask]> wrote: Kate? Are you crazy? Calling the French froggies etc. Your barrage is most childish. --------------------------------- Do you Yahoo!? The New Yahoo! Search - Faster. Easier. Bingo. .