"But that's what it MEANS"

[Will Linden]

   Mr. Jamar claims the position that if a description conforms to what he 
considers the "accurate" denotational meaning of words, we should ignore 
connotations.

     I can not buy this. Some people respond to complaints about labelling 
"cults" by proclaiming what they say is an "accurate" and "objective" 
meaning of the word, and refuse to acknowledge the complete disconnect 
between their "accurate" "scientific" usage and the real world's use of the 
word as a bogeyman label.

      I doubt that Jamar would accept the "accuracy" criterion in regard to 
the "fat Jewess" reference I cited.

       As for something being an "accurate description of their 
behavior"..... precisely what I have been saying is that it is NOT applied 
to people who engage in identical BEHAVIOR for causes which do not fall in 
the "religion" box. From recent posts, I am sure that I would be 
indignantly "corrected" if I said that Hitchens, Dawkins and Sam Harris are 
"proselytizing" for atheism; and similarly if I applied to people who 
engage in "face to face confrontations", even abuse ones, to demand that I 
change my political and social views, my taste in music, or my choice of 
leisure activities.

         What about people who insist that "Jew" is ipso facto "offensive", 
and insist on "Jewish person" instead? Perhaps Mr. Levinson would enlighten 
us on this, and how it seems to have contributed to the brouhouha over 
Google search rankings and jewwatch.com