Here is a link to a recent article published on The Gadget Guy Web site. Note the words "bejesus" and "Chrissakes" in the first and second paragraphs respectively. (Oops! Looks like I'm not permitted to post links, so you'll have to locate the article yourself. It's under "Blu Ray: is still an unfinished format", on the left side of the Gadget Guy dot com dot au homepage.)
I emailed the site to express my disgust at the use of these terms, which ought to be offensive to all Christians. This is what I wrote:
"Two paragraphs into Anika Hillery's article on Blu-Ray technology and already I've copped a "bejesus" and a "chrissakes" from her. Is this double slap in the face to your Christian readers necessary???
"I doubt severely that these offensive terms would have made it past your Web site's censors if they were aimed at Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals, so why should Christians have to tolerate them?
"If this is the standard of "professionalism" we can expect from your Web site in future, then clearly I and many others will have to go elsewhere for news on, and reviews of, the latest gadgets."
Hillery emailed me this reply:
"As a commercial operation we try to provide information in a language that is acceptable to the broadest possible audience. Our reference on these matters, as it is for most Australian publishers, is the Macquarie Dictionary.
"The edition I use designates bejesus as a colloquial term, not a derogatory or offensive term. The Mac defines it as an exclamation of disgust, astonishment; something to destroy the self confidence of or defeat utterly. Chrissakes, too, is not designated as derogatory or offensive, but described as an interjection. Its defined as an exclamation of annoyance, surprise or despair. In the context of my column, these words are used appropriately.
"One mans meat is another mans poison, however, and I appreciate that the Macquarie, as an arbiter of standard vernacular, wont satisfy everyone. For example, it describes mother------ as colloquial, whereas I find it the word utterly foul. The commercial radio stations, however, dont seem to care about this when compiling their playlists, nor do the kids at the bus stop when Im walking my kid to preschool.
"So its easy to find offence in everyday things, things that others certainly dont register as being offensive. Please appreciate, then, that it was certainly not my intention to try hard to offend with the terms used in that column, and that our editorial team will be more alert to concerns such as yours in the future."
I didn't think her response was anywhere near good enough, so I emailed her the following:
"So, when in doubt, blame the Macquarie?
"Tell me, did you look up these offensive terms before or after you published them online?
"Just out of curiosity, would you have used "kike", "[slang for black person]", or "[slang for homosexual]" if they too were colloquial exclamations?
"I take it by broadest possible audience, you mean atheists and assorted groups intolerant of Christianity, since the millions of Australian Christians are apparently a forgotten minority now?
"I intend to contact a number of large Australian Christian Web sites to organise a boycott of your Web site."
I encourage every Christian who reads this to boycott Gadget Guy dot com dot au and to let them know, and perhaps their advertisers too, that Christians aren't going to tolerate the use of these offensive terms.
By the way, when last I looked, the terms had not been removed from the article. Perhaps, when Ms Hillery's inbox has been flooded with complaints, that will change.
You can PM me for her email address, as I'm not permitted to post it here.
I emailed the site to express my disgust at the use of these terms, which ought to be offensive to all Christians. This is what I wrote:
"Two paragraphs into Anika Hillery's article on Blu-Ray technology and already I've copped a "bejesus" and a "chrissakes" from her. Is this double slap in the face to your Christian readers necessary???
"I doubt severely that these offensive terms would have made it past your Web site's censors if they were aimed at Jews, Muslims, or homosexuals, so why should Christians have to tolerate them?
"If this is the standard of "professionalism" we can expect from your Web site in future, then clearly I and many others will have to go elsewhere for news on, and reviews of, the latest gadgets."
Hillery emailed me this reply:
"As a commercial operation we try to provide information in a language that is acceptable to the broadest possible audience. Our reference on these matters, as it is for most Australian publishers, is the Macquarie Dictionary.
"The edition I use designates bejesus as a colloquial term, not a derogatory or offensive term. The Mac defines it as an exclamation of disgust, astonishment; something to destroy the self confidence of or defeat utterly. Chrissakes, too, is not designated as derogatory or offensive, but described as an interjection. Its defined as an exclamation of annoyance, surprise or despair. In the context of my column, these words are used appropriately.
"One mans meat is another mans poison, however, and I appreciate that the Macquarie, as an arbiter of standard vernacular, wont satisfy everyone. For example, it describes mother------ as colloquial, whereas I find it the word utterly foul. The commercial radio stations, however, dont seem to care about this when compiling their playlists, nor do the kids at the bus stop when Im walking my kid to preschool.
"So its easy to find offence in everyday things, things that others certainly dont register as being offensive. Please appreciate, then, that it was certainly not my intention to try hard to offend with the terms used in that column, and that our editorial team will be more alert to concerns such as yours in the future."
I didn't think her response was anywhere near good enough, so I emailed her the following:
"So, when in doubt, blame the Macquarie?
"Tell me, did you look up these offensive terms before or after you published them online?
"Just out of curiosity, would you have used "kike", "[slang for black person]", or "[slang for homosexual]" if they too were colloquial exclamations?
"I take it by broadest possible audience, you mean atheists and assorted groups intolerant of Christianity, since the millions of Australian Christians are apparently a forgotten minority now?
"I intend to contact a number of large Australian Christian Web sites to organise a boycott of your Web site."
I encourage every Christian who reads this to boycott Gadget Guy dot com dot au and to let them know, and perhaps their advertisers too, that Christians aren't going to tolerate the use of these offensive terms.
By the way, when last I looked, the terms had not been removed from the article. Perhaps, when Ms Hillery's inbox has been flooded with complaints, that will change.
You can PM me for her email address, as I'm not permitted to post it here.
