Internetworkers: http://www.ibiblio.org/internetworkers/

["Sil Greene" <quack AT ibiblio.org>]

matusiak wrote:
> hey everybody, this has nothing to do with nothing[...]

> --
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A12994-2004Sep10_2.html
>
>   Language Malfunction
>
>   As a practitioner of bondage, discipline and sadomasochistic
> practices [...] "S&M" is not a style of dress but the acceptance
> of a set of sexual fetish activities as "normal" and "healthy"
> [...]
>
>   -- David Phillips

I'm sorry, David Phillips has his own Language Malfunction, and it's worse
than the one he's complaining about.  "S&M" is an "acceptance"?? 
Nonononono.... it /is/ the "set of ..fetish activities..", whether
accepted, healthy, or otherwise.  I agree that folks who think that the
phrase "S&M-clad" is acceptable should be /SHOT/... but I understand what
they're attempting to communicate.  (Think:  images of glossy black
leather, maybe some studs or spikes, boots, chains, or riding crops.  Just
to generalize the fashion.)

DP's attempt at fighting language misuse (that most folks will grok by
context) with further language misuse (that folks won't understand even if
they read your personal definition twenty times over) is less than useful,
it's downright asinine.

--s