Darren New wrote:
> David H. Burns wrote:
>> Did you read the accompanying text on Wiki? The term "Bible Belt" is a 
>> derisive term
> 
> Not any more. Indeed, 25 years after it was coined, the president didn't 
> seem to have any problem using the term. 
I must confess that I did not listen to a lot of what our previous 
President said.

> 
> And the page didn't say anything about it being derisive, but merely 
> about it being coined.
I see you aren't familiar with H. L. Mencken. You ought to try him. If I 
remember
right, Mencken is fun to read even if you disagree or even dislike him.
> 
> You really don't have to act offended or disgusted by someone using the 
> same terminology that Truman used 50 years ago. 

Oh you meant Truman, well I was too young to listen to him, but I 
wouldn't say
that a term wasn't derisive just because he used it. That would depend 
on the context.

>Unless, of course, 
> offense is a smokescreen for lack of content. ;-)

I'm not sure what this sentence means or what it could mean in the 
context, but I
think it's an insult or a attempt a one. :) Be that as it may, I don't 
believe that in my
original response to the tirade against the "south", that I objected to 
the tern "Bible Belt".
I do think that it is hardly ever used in any but a pejorative sense 
(except in the cases
  where someone something like "I'm glad I live in the Bible Belt" 
--there it's laudatory).
I doubt that it is ever used as a pure descriptive term. Often I think 
the user has no
denotative meaning at all in mind.

As to lack of content -- well, it should have been abundantly clear that 
my original response
to said tirade had no *denotative* meaning. :)

But if anyone wishes to use the term "Bible Belt" anyway he likes, let 
him do so. :)

David

Post a reply to this message