| | If, Bill, you wish to reserve the right to be selectively offended, then I suppose I should reserve the right to selectively take you seriously?
I happened to think, after consideration, that your objection on the dissent forum was to the word you found offensive to women. I took you seriously, and removed what I said. But while you could have voiced your objection without repeating the quote, and you could have also removed the quote when I answered you in private, you did neither. By keeping the quote there it was like reading the headline of a tabloid newspaper that objects to disgusting pornographic pictures on its cover and then advises readers to see these same not-to-be-viewed pictures inside on page six. You took the opportunity to put me in a bad light, and I am returning the favor.
As for the origin of the dissent comment, I tried several times to interact civilly with Cantu. I gave him the benefit of the doubt at least three times. He threw back my encouraging posts with insults, showing himself to be a crank. I was puzzled by this behavior, and googled his name. Not finding any relevant reference, I thought he might perhaps be a troll under an assumed name, perhaps an anagram. So I went to wordsmith.org and used their anagram engine to look at his name. Lo and behold, "c^^^ awarded" came up as an anagram. I should have posted the anagram in that form. Perhaps c^^^ would be taken by more innocent souls for the entirely plausible meaning "crap." Those who saw it was an anagram would have figured out the secret. Being smart enough to figure out that it was an anagram, they would have seen that the word choice was not based upon some anti-female animus, but was constrained by the available letters.
I apologize for this hijack, and appreciate the opportunity to explain my poor taste, and hope the matter can be considered closed. I shall happily leave E.C. and those who wish to do so to wallow in his crapulence with him
Ted
|
|
