Paul,

I can't agree with you. You are condemning a whole category of rhetoric we all use in everyday life. Your very post is itself "judgemental [sic], derogatory, and insulting to some" in its condemnation of this kind of speech.

When circumstances warrant it, cynical criticism is appropriate and justified. Such terms as "PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER.," "PRK," and "Kalifornia" are incisive indictments of the syndromes they designate. For instance, I recently used the expression "PRK" to delineate the excessive regulatory behavior of California in foolishly and arbitrarily determining differently the legality of two variations of the M-1 Carbine depending on which stock the gun had. The gun in both forms has been readily available as World War II surplus until California's 2001 when one of the state's many restrictive gun laws took effect. Before 2001, both variation of the gun were equally innocent under the law. After 2000, someone who for any reason failed to register his military surplus folding stock model was felon. Legally he would lose all of his civil right as a felon. That's arbitrary, draconian, and just plain wrong. California's excessive regulatory zeal appears to be unlimited. Do you have some ostensibly benevolent public purpose, the California legislature will pass a law to support it, put it's adversaries out of business, or tax it's users to death. Soft drinks make people fat, just impose an excise tax. No scheme is too crazy for California.

As I understand it, you're saying "PRK" and "Kalifornia" are derogatory? Nonetheless, you describe yourself as being from "Porkopolis!" Porkopolis??? It's too ironic to be scolded by a man from "Porkopolis." Putting "Porkopolis" below your identifying user name is itself judgmental, derogatory and insulting. The term appears to deride the political appropriation of funds to unwarranted projects for the political gain of the politicians involved. Even if it designates a voluntarily chosen municipal nickname, it is demeaning and shows poor self-esteem, and therefore is politically incorrect and unacceptable. Your home description is undermining your argument.

In looking at some of your recent posts (July 2, 2005), I see you use the metaphor "Keystone Cops" to designate TSA officials. I am not going to criticize your rhetoric because you obviously chose that colorful expression to convey your assessment of the TSA's performance. But that language does not fit the standards you have proclaimed.

Colorful, emotional language is integral to our communication. Your own verbal behavior does not fit the standards you have announced. In my opinion, it's the unrealistic standards which are the problem.

Paul, I don't have any animosity towards you, but I'm not going to sit quietly back and take being censured wrongfully. I look forward to hearing from you on this matter. I hope we can discuss it amicably.

John