Reply #86: I appreciate your answering- and

[Bluerthanblue]

I agree that Imus should have been brought up short before this.

I don't agree that the degree of the offensiveness is the same, but that doesn't excuse his remarks, or make them any less hurtful.

I guess the best way to say this is in plain english-

My understanding of the word he used twice, going beyond the words that slurred the appearance of the Rutgers women the word-"HO"-

I know to mean:

ho
1. A hooker or a hoochie, although sometimes more promiscuous than a hoochie, and therefore undesirable. "Yo G, look at that ho!"

hoochie
1. n. A female who is promiscuous by nature. A female who grants sexual favors easy. *See also "hooch" or "hoochie mama." "Let's go mack on them hoochies over there."

http://www.thesource4ym.com/teenlingo/index.asp?Letter=H

there is another citation here:

http://wordnavigator.com/word/ho/

This ramps the whole thing up a notch imo.

I don't excuse his hateful remarks uttered earlier- I DO believe the remarks he made, the words this post was addressing, stepped way over any kind of acceptable speech.

As for the notion that "the Jews control the media"- I don't belive that was implied or intended by this post- And people who make stupid statements like that should be confronted, and corrected. - I do belive Imus understood full well the meaning of the words he was using, and used them without conscience.

thank you for helping me understand where you are coming from.

It will be a wonderful day, when conversations such as this don't have to happen.
:hi:


peace,
blu