Frequent Reader's dashboard

It was a pleasure speaking with you about this, I always like the opportunity to discuss and revise ideas.

I'll be leaving this site now since the rep has clarified that it's a tech support site. I hope we'll meet again in the gawker forums --on another topic hopefully :) – Frequent Reader, on October 22, 2008 20:54

Noah, thank you for the clarification, that actually explains a lot of the confusion I've been having (like having to pick a product to submit about :)). This needs to be stated in other places as well. For example, I got here by clicking a link that said "Feedback" at the bottom of the Consumerist page. Obviously if this is a technical support page then you don't want to call it "feedback" since this could be interpreted in so many different ways. – Frequent Reader, on October 22, 2008 20:50

"Group of people as object" is not the case in this article.

Further, you do understand that when you say "robbed by credit card companies", that's also not a literal use of the word "robbed", right? It's a metaphor; you're drawing a comparison between a legal (but unfair) practice of high interest rates and the illegal practice of robbery.

In the case of the consumerist article, the author was drawing a comparison between the interest rate and one of the many meanings of the word rape --why are you two bending over backwards just to prove it's one of the extremely uncommon uses of the word? Why does it matter? The most common usage is the one most readers will assume he meant. That being the case, a clarification from the author, or an avoidance of the word, would be an easy solution. If you insist on using the word, you're going to have people who get upset.

There are plenty of examples of this in polite society. There's nothing inherently wrong with a swastika; it's just a symbol, and one that's been in use by a variety of organizations for thousands of years. It could theoretically be used in a decoration pattern just like curlicues, fleurs-de-lis, triangles, etc. But the common connotation that most people have when they see it is the Nazis; because of that, and because the emotional revulsion to the Nazis is so strong, we avoid using swastikas as decoration. – Frequent Reader, on October 22, 2008 20:45

Ok, so again, sahclohn, how does this fit that literal definition? In the original article the object of "raped" was "Timothy". Not a place. – Frequent Reader, on October 22, 2008 20:25

So hanzo, you're saying this was a literal use of the word? In the original story, we're talking about an interest rate -- how does this constitute "destroying" or "stripping of posession"? At best, it was hyperbole, and if that's your interpretation, I think it's a valid one --although someone who thought it was an allegory or metaphor, comparing the interest rate to another usage of the word rape, would have a valid viewpoint as well. Which by the way, is the way it's being used in sahclohn's example above.

The issue here isn't whether it was used correctly --I don't think any of the people who raised this issue are grammar police-- but whether its use was appropriate. There are all kinds of words (some have come up in this very thread) that are inappropriate even when used in a grammatically correct sense.

By the way, I'm not one of the people who was "outraged" over this, I just thought it was in poor taste... but Consumerist and Gawker's responses to the situation, were, frankly, a bit shocking/insulting. – Frequent Reader, on October 22, 2008 20:07

You referred me here from http://getsatisfaction.com/gawker/top... , and I now find your answer is: It's "a simile. Simmer down." --an answer that's both insulting and factually incorrect. Regardless of what your interpretation is of this current thread, the description I posted in the referring thread was neither alarmist nor confrontational, and makes it clear that I understand the author was using the term as an implied metaphor. Can you please escalate this to your supervisor? I'm finding it hard to believe that Gawker's objective for this feedback site is in line with your dismissive and irrelevant reply. – Frequent Reader, on October 22, 2008 19:34