I can’t agree there has been much simplification going on in these discussions – I have seen lots of very thoughtful and heartfelt views being shared. There seems a clear consensus that there are a host of almost impossibly difficult issues we are all being made to face by this tragedy. And if we differ in our views (as we are bound to), as IP says, that is the nature of discussion… no-one here is likely to have either a unique view or any monopoly on truth or logic, which is surely why we want to compare and contrast our opinions. All we have to do to preserve our sanity is to agree to differ, where we must, without undue rancour – and if the discussion bores or distresses us, to avoid it completely (with participants conversely expected to not spread it cross-threaded all over the board!)
Perhaps I should articulate one other view: this is not an American discussion board, being addressed to Americans. It is international, both by Anu’s intent and by its participants’ practice. So when I held up Falwell’s words, I was certainly not intending to “spit them back at” anyone, least of all with any assumption about what others might think of this use of the English language we all share – I was saying to a mixed group of friends around the world “here is an abuse I deplore, and I endorse the plea for calm and careful use of language – what do you think?” Whenever making a statement, I intend a question implied, which you can use or lose as you see fit. fwiw, Mr B, I don’t give a tinker’s cuss for his retraction: all the subtext says to me is that “maybe I shouldn’t have said this right now (even tho’ it’s the God-fearing truth!)”
The plea for regaining the tree frog of previous discussions is probably well timed. Like previous occasions, the solution lies in all our hands – I have started a couple of purely word hares running in recent days, and anyone else can do the same.
