But, criminy, many people like myself get tired of the, um, BS we
hear from hyperacademic types. (Now, how come BS is OK, when we all
know exactly what it means?)
Anyway, I stand by the basic points, especially that
it's--uh--cowardly to obfuscate while pretending that you're not.
At least, these people should admit that they're having a dense,
lost-in-space discussion with words designed to keep out the
uninitiated. Or, like Beth B. implied, that they're making every
concept as difficult and obscure as they possibly can. I used to
tell students that anybody could make the simple complex; it took a
real thinker and writer to make the complex simple, without making it
simplistic. (It was profound comments like that that got me where I
am today.)
sf
(carolyn dean's message:
">go in an attempt to build an obscuring wall of bullshit.
>it's pointed out to them. That's chickens***, and we all know it.
>
>s finley
Just a denotation/connotation note here - I was reading the post, trying to
decide if the language was 'gender specific' and whether a woman would have
phrased it the same, pondering double standards, et al, and I wondered why
you are comfortable typing 'bullshit' and not 'chickenshit'? Is one more
offensive or less acceptable?")