|
 |
David H. Burns wrote:
> I must confess that I did not listen to a lot of what our previous
> President said.
I think there are probably few people on this newsgroup who listened to what
Truman said live, yes.
>> 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.
I'm merely disputing your ridiculing me by asking if I'd even read the page.
>> 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. :)
No, it's just an expression that maybe you're not being as clever
conversationally as you might think you are.
> Be that as it may, I don't
> believe that in my
> original response to the tirade against the "south",
It wasn't a tirade. It was a comment that prejudice against atheists is more
common in the south of the USA. Why, do you have some evidence that it
happens more often in the north?
> I doubt that it is ever used as a pure descriptive term.
It is when you're explaining to someone that the southern area of the USA is
so well known for fundamentalist christians that it's been given the name
"the bible belt", you see.
> But if anyone wishes to use the term "Bible Belt" anyway he likes, let
> him do so. :)
I'm using it as explanatory subtext for someone from a country with very
little religious faith asking about the behavior of people prejudiced
against atheists. If you have some evidence that people outside the bible
belt are more often prejudiced against atheists than people inside the bible
belt, you should present that instead of taking mindless offense as
perceived slights.
--
Darren New, San Diego CA, USA (PST)
"We'd like you to back-port all the changes in 2.0
back to version 1.0."
"We've done that already. We call it 2.0."
Post a reply to this message
|
|
