Re: appalling laziness and presumption?

From: Michael M. Butler (
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 23:56:46 MST

"Dr Chris R. Tame" wrote:
> As has already been made clear, the UK vernacular usage - as with many
> words - has long lost the connotations of its ancient linguistic
> origins. "Twat" does not mean a woman's genitals - it means an
> unpleasant or obnoxious individual.

If true, this is indicative of something. Appalling laziness and
presumption, perhaps--of the general UK populace? I know "bloody"
stopped being offensive around the 1960s, at least among the generation
that watched / created (e.g.) "Monty Python".

Still and all, I also happen to find fault with people who can't be
bothered to use a search engine when I've provided sufficient search
terms. Generally, when asked for a cite, I'll spoon feed the person the
search engine and terms, to rub their noses in it.

Sorry to be such a nuisance, but at least I never called you a twat.


PS: Permit me to make clear that in the US, "wanker" is regarded as
merely a funny Briticism; since I know it means "masturbator", I'd still
say that your engagement in this protracted discussion appears to
qualify you for the title.

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Mon May 28 2001 - 09:56:35 MDT