Simon Ward wrote:
"It comes down to writing generalised phrases without thought."
Again, wrong. Generalizations are fine as long as one doesn't attempt
to draw more meaning from them than is fitting. I wrote about the
'unwashed Arab masses' and as a generalization it has as much meaning as
my point drew from it. Not more, not less. Only a sloppy reader would
take from the phrase a meaning regarding Arabs in general. Are you a
sloppy reader, Simon?
Simon wrote:
"Now if I were to warble on about 'moneygrabbing Jews', Stan would be
down on me like a thunderclap."
And rightfully so. What on earth would lead you to say such a thing?
Are you anti-Semitic, Simon?
Simon concludes:
"Or are you in denial Phil?"
I love seeing this rhetorical move in action. It has that 'Stopped
beating your wife yet?' quality. A bit much, though, combined with the
'You are a racist!' stuff. It's a matter of focus. Do you want people
to focus on your 'Racist!' hand-waving spiel or the psycho-babble? I
don't think it works if you have both. Eric knows more about writing so
he might correct me. However, it works if you are Omar or Amago, but
they are caricatures. Are you a caricature, Simon?
Less sincerely,
but entertained nevertheless,
Phil Enns
Toronto, ON
------------------------------------------------------------------
To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off,
digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
