At 07:45 PM 5/10/99 +0100, "Bryan Moss" <bryan.moss@dial.pipex.com> wrote:
No need to be formal, Bryan, we're all pals here. But if the impulse to formality overwhelms you, that's Dr Broderick.
>a flurry of God-knows-what...?
I'd rather leave `God' out of it, as well as `meat'.
More to the point: I believe you've missed the force of my objection to
this usage. I'm not calling for *euphemism*, as in some mealy-mouthed
demand that the limbless be called `differently athletic'. Referring to
living human persons as `meat' is not an obvious, neutral lexical default
choice - it's a deliberately affrontive declaration, conveying an attitude
well captured in Machine's rather Manichean avowal (on the >H list) that he
or she (it?) uses `the term "meat" all the time particularly because it is
derisive. i do hold flesh in contempt.'
I don't. Most people don't. It's pissing in the wind to convey this
impression inadvertently (unless of course you agree with Machine and
actually do `hold the flesh in contempt', a position I regard as either
Damien Broderick