You just can't help yourself can you RF? The, "fragile", sensibilities of NT? This is just a somewhat more polite way of saying what Donnie said viz: all ARs are, "sooks": and an imposition of your views as to what NT's sensibilities should be. This is just par for the course.
I don't even know what a "sook" is.
A, "sook", is a, "milk-sop", or, "cry-baby", a weak and feeble or infantile person: in a relevant case
, it is a man with the supposedly, "fragile", (viz: contemptible) sensibilities of a woman and I believe we both know more vulgar terms of abuse tending in the same direction.
And I used "fragile" as a description, and I believe it is accurate. I understand it is subjective. Just as subjective as "somewhat more polite".
I'm not objecting on the grounds that it is inaccurate but on the grounds specified above viz: that, in the context
, it seemed deliberately contemptuous.
Still, one would think you would view "somewhat more polite" as a step in the right direction, instead of an opportunity to berate me.
consider it a step in the right direction: I just couldn't resist the opportunity. You just can't help yourself can you RF?
Is this meant to imply that I suffer from a personality disorder? If so, I find it offensive.
No, it isn't meant to be taken literally. How should I know what you suffer from?
It is an expression of irritation
at what appears to be your continuation of the attack in this thread. I agree, however, I should have left it out.
Do you know anyone who wouldn't be offended at your question? It could of course, be innocuous, that's the art of polite denigration isn't it? But the context makes the meaning clear. In any case, seeing that the only response to NT's earlier requests to adopt an acceptable form of address were greeted with yet more abuse and denigration s/he probably didn't see much point in responding.
I didn't denigrate NT's earlier requests.
No, you didn't. Others did. An inflamed context was already established and your comments probably look worse in that context than they might have otherwise.
I admitted to the snarky quotient of my post...but it certainly didn't include the use of "what".
I'm sure NT will be glad to know that the, "what", didn't carry the implication I placed on it. So am I. Thank you for the explanation.
I wouldn't take offense at such a comment from an anonymous poster on a board...especially if I had already expended considerable bandwidth collectively and categorically denouncing that person.
I have not seen any posts by NT denouncing you.
BTW...I take offense at your use of the word "denigrate". There was quite a flap awhile back here in the states that the term is offensive to black people.
What, because, "denigrate", is from the Latin, "nigere", "to blacken"? I don't think the European Black/White = Evil/Good dichotomy has anything to do with black people
and I think it is, in any case, too deep in the European consciousness to eradicate. However, I suppose it may, in the past, have encouraged adverse attitudes towards black people and I'd be prepared to look for another word if a sufficient number of people are truly offended. Is this word now banned amongst the, "PC crowd", in America?
I have decided to agree with those that maintained that
May I ask when
you made that decision? May I also ask why, if it truly offends you, you have yourself employed this word above when you said? "I didn't denigrate NT's earlier requests".
The convention, when in doubt, is to use s/he or his/her. There is no difficulty. Why do you use, "him", here? Do you really not understand that NT is asking that no assumptions be made about his/her gender?
I would rather use the equally valid "convention" to use the masculine pronoun when in doubt.
It is by no means equally valid. His/her s/he (or he/she) clearly expresses that there is doubt as to gender. The use of the masculine pronoun alone, obviously, expresses that there is no
doubt and that the gender is masculine.
After all, it was a convention for a lot longer, and so has the greater claim to actually being a convention.
It has no greater claim to being a convention. It simply has a claim to being a convention for a longer period of time. At the same time it has much less claim to either accuracy or courtesy. BTW it was not a literary convention
to cover cases of doubt as to gender. It represented an institutionalized masculine conspiracy
to treat the feminine as invisible; write women out of history, and out of consideration, and maintain masculine dominance.
Besides...his gender ISN'T in doubt. You should read more closely. You seem to be making the error Phantomuk made when referring to NT as "her" .
I admit to being totally confused as to NT's gender (it did
have something to do with the structure of NT's earlier posts) but I had thought that the upshot was that NT wanted his gender not to be assumed/specified. I was wrong. You were right.
...righteously moving in judgment and betraying a lack of knowing the specifics
There was no, "righteously moving in judgment". My suggestion, that you were engaging in willful
misunderstanding, was based on objective consideration of your other posts here and elsewhere. It turns out I was wrong: this
Why should arc108 take personal offence RF? Are you calling arc a cockroach? This is so transparent. Of course, we have had, "night-crawler", so you are in good company.
You overlooked this question RF.
NB: Arc108 objects to, "it", for animals and wants us to use gender specific pronouns in recognition of their (proposed) status as legal, "persons". It has nothing to do with anything personal to arc - as I am sure you know.