To Mr. Margosis:
While my Webster's agrees with yours, my American Heritage
dictionary gives as the second common usage of the word "henchman" the
following:
2. A member of a criminal gang.
Regarding the usage of "henchmen" in the posting in
question........honestly now, which of the definitions from the two
dictionaries would a "reasonable person" assume was intended ... evidenced
by the overall tone of your posting. Furthermore, SIR, I REALLY AM NOT
EVIL but apparently you perceive me as such for implying my conservative
point of view. All I asked originally was that we restrain our selves from
personal attacks, NAME CALLING and negative political diatribes on the
list. It appears that some members of this forum agree... may we now move
on now to productive topics and a more genteel form in our postings.
Don A
At 07:00 PM 8/22/01 -0400, you wrote:
>According to Webster's Second International Edition with over 3200 pages,
>the word Henchman (from Middle English) means
>1) an attendant, squire, or page,
>2) the gillie or 'right-hand man of a highland chieftain; hence atrusted
>follower or supporter (Scott.),
>3) a political follower giving active support esp. one whose support is
>chiefly a matter of personal advantage.
>
>The connotationYOU may ascribe to perfectly correct words of the English
>language should not be translated to an offensive tone YOU perceive. Evil
>is who...never mind.
>A simple statement about current politics should be just that.
>Michel
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Don Adams" <[log in to unmask]>
>To: <[log in to unmask]>
>Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 12:20 PM
>Subject: Politics-Final comment
>
>
> > To list:
> > After reading remarks showing both agreement with and criticism of
>my
> > posting about politics ,and then reflecting upon the subject, I believe
> > that I must amend what I wrote and amplify some statements somewhat. I do
> > not think I made my point very well. Sorry. Since then I have had a very
> > nice and reasoned email from one of the writers which I really
>appreciated
> > a lot. I now have a better understanding of her frustration. Having lost
> > both a wife and mother to breast cancer I have been quite frustrated also
> > at the ratio of research spending on that disease that as compared to that
> > spent on AIDS. My wife was only 36 when she died. Having the onset of PD
>at
> > my age does not affect me psychologically in the same way it would have 30
> > years ago.
> > After thinking about it, I do agree that the topic of stem cell
>research
> > funding is irretrievably tied to politics and that it is impossible to
> > separate the two. But I still do not believe that this forum is the place
> > to engage in polemics , "partisan politics" or personal attacks and name
> > calling--example : referring to Bush's advisors as "henchmen" which has
>the
> > connotation of "a member of a criminal gang". Do some folks really believe
> > that? Probably, and there are forums to express their thinking. The
> > "henchmen" remark and bringing capital punishment and expenditures on
> > national defense into the discussion triggered my reaction I'm sure.
> > I still believe then, that political comments on this list
>should be
> > limited to the issue at hand, less the remarks that tend to distract,
> > weaken the valid points, and make some readers dismiss the opinion without
> > considering it.
> > Don A
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> > To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to:
>mailto:[log in to unmask]
> > In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
> >
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------------
>To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
>In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
----------------------------------------------------------------------
To sign-off Parkinsn send a message to: mailto:[log in to unmask]
In the body of the message put: signoff parkinsn
