::::::::
I learned a valuable lesson this past weekend about the sensitivity some have for certain words.
Now, as an English teacher and a writer of several different genres, I pride myself on recognizing words which are emotionally charged. One must know the tools of one's trade, as it were, though writing editorials is most certainly more an avocation than profession for me.
After hearing the First Big 'Debate' of this never-ending election season, I chose to respond by pointing out an error by McCain in the exchange of sound bites; an error that clearly illustrated that McCain is out of touch.
The article The First Big 'Debate' of '08 can be read at my blogsite Lexis, Nexus, Solar Plexus
But it might not be read at this site because, even though I was 'strongly advised' not to use a certain word, I went ahead and submitted the article to the editors here at OpEdNews with the questionable word unexpunged.
Subsequently, I got a notice from OpEdNews that, unlike the other 22 articles I've posted at this most excellent of sites, the one on the Big Debate was not acceptable. There was some boilerplate blather about editing and grammar, suggested guide-lines, etc; a softly worded chastisement.
Okay, cool, I sometimes miss things. Nobody’s perfect.
It was the 'PS - NOTE' added to the signature of my rejection email that zeroed in on what I must consider the actual stumbling block for my piece being accepted. It was not poor grammar or fractured syntax or serious failings in style that barred my article from the cyber-soapbox; it was the use of a certain word which I dare not state here, my wrist having been ever-so-gently slapped.
I can give you a hint though, I suppose. It’s a seven-letter word that begins with the terminal letter of the English alphabet and ends in the suffix denoting a system of belief, government, organization, philosophy, etc; 'I-S-M', -ism.
You can imagine my chagrin.
This thoughtful nudge back onto the high road of Political Correctness was accompanied by a bit of friendly advice suggesting that perhaps I didn't quite understand the words or the concepts I was attempting to use.
I must commend the effort on the part of the anonymous, hard-working editor to steer me back to the straight and narrow. I must make my commendation and declare my appreciation for his/her taking the time for the sake of good independent journalism here in my diary because the email was unmonitored – no one would read my response to the editor’s invaluable comments.
So, Dear Diary,
Special thanks goes out to my unknown editor, my guardian PC angel.
Kiss-kiss, hug, hug! Good things…
PS NOTE: I would like to say that I do truly consider supportable the notion that a nation and a theory of political governance are two separate concepts and therefore cannot both be encompassed by a single lexical item. The map is not the territory, so to speak.
