quote:
Originally posted by Drew:
Back to topic please! Take grammar and spelling discussions elsewhere. BeternU hijacks every thread with his silliness and it is not only permitted, but it seems to me encouraged. Again, he has not offered anything of substance to any thread. You encourage him to banter on about nonsense and get off topic. It is ruining the forum. Thank goodness he has nothing to say on the food topic. It seems to be the only thing left worth reading. I don't have time to filter through all the garbage to get to the main topic. There are people on this forum who have good ideas and are interesting. I am not reading much of it any more because you are wasting so much time on him. I thought the ignore list would help, but I still have to filter through all the stupid responses to him.
Hey, Drew--You should be wary of absolutes. When you accuse me of not offering "anything of substance to any thread," methinks your perceptions are a bit disordered. For your correction and edification, I reproduce below my initial posting on THIS thread and invite you to either (1) describe what there is about it that makes it devoid of substance or (2) post an apology to me for your intemperate and wrongheaded characterization of my performance.
Here is the skillful and persuasive discourse of my earlier offering. Read carefully before you reply:
<<<Yes, the actions of this person are heinous and deplorable.
But whether one refers to this person as an "illegal immigrant" or "illegal alien" seems not be be of any momentous concern. Any YOUR accusation against Tom Smith seems founded on your own careless reading of the article. The lead sentence is as follows:
"A man who authorities say is an illegal immigrant has been charged with rape and sexual abuse."
If Smith is merely recounting the manner in which "authorities" described the accused, then it seems to me a bit harsh for you to accuse Smith of "attempting to be politically correct." Were the words that trouble you so much (illegal immigrant") seized upon by Smith as HIS preferred descriptor or is he simply reiterating the terminology used by the "authorities?" You could not have answered this question conclusively merely by reading the article, but you jumped right on the first possibility--that Smith himself chose the terminology. Is that the kind of interpretive modality you apply when you practice law?
As to the term "illegal immigrant," please check the numerous items in the first link below and it will be apparent to you that the term is in very widespread use, and that it is often used in conjunction with news reports and articles that certainly do NOT originate with sources sympathetic to illegal immigration. I suppose have to put you in the class with all the others who prefer, nay INSIST upon, "alien" rather than "immigrant" because of the more pejorative implications of the former and not for any reason that has to do with correct definitions of terms.
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&ned=us&q=illegal+immigrant&btnG=Search+NewsOne more thing--there ar apparently plenty of folks who consider "illegal immigrant" to be a derogatory term. See link below:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36847 Truly, LAWGRL, you are making a big stretch here in your speculative and gratuitous allegations that Tom Smith has somehow committed "political correctness."
Now, if you really want to get technical, as regards the use of the term "illegal immigrant," you might consider the definition of the term as set forth in the Cambridge online dictionary, to wit:
"illegal immigrant noun [C] (US ALSO illegal alien)
someone who goes to live or work in another country when they do not have the legal right to do this."
See, LAWGRL, the two terms are not all that distinguishable. I believe you owe Mr. Smith an apology!>>>>
Have at it, Drew, and please be honest in your response.
