"Kevin Vang" wrote in message
t...
In article , says...
Well, I think maybe Kevin's use of "unfortunate choice of word" referred
to
Skwala's, not yours.


No, actually I was referring to Tim's use of the word "idiotic."

You left out the part where I conceded that possibility.

I actually agree with Tim's point, I just thought he rather undermined it
by suggesting "idiotic" as a more acceptable word than "retarded", and
you don't have to dig that deep at all to find out why:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=idiot

That's the trouble with dictionaries....they really don't tell you all that
much....even about a particular word in question, let alone the context in
which it was used or intent. I encounter the word "idiot" frequently.
Generally (in my experience.....which I have no reason to suspect is
atypical) it is considered as fairly innocuous for an insulting
term.....except to it's target, of course, OR when deliberately directed at
someone known to suffer from some sort of genuine cognitive disability.

Mind you, I don't have a problem with your position.....subtle distinctions
are just that.....but dictionaries alone are miserable guides to the
richness of language.

At any rate, quibbling over nuance may be interesting
and even instructive, but it can also detract attention from larger issues.
In this instance (and as is so often the case in Usenet), it has done just
that. Skwala's action in posting that link pegs the repugnance
meter......and not just because of some sort of lexical fine point or a
matter of style. It isn't simply the use of the word "retarded" or any
variation thereof. Moreover, his subsequent actions smell rather strongly
of unrepentant dissembling.

Wolfgang