P.C. at the Washington Times
And so it begins, via Congressional Quarterly’s Ground Game blog:
> From: Patrick Tuohy ptuohy@washingtontimes.com
> Date: February 25, 2008 4:43:13 PM EST
> To: twtnews@washingtontimes.com
> Cc: Patrick Tuohy ptuohy@washingtontimes.com
> Subject: Style changes
>
> All:
>
> Here are some recent updates to TWT style.
>
> 1) Clinton will be the headline word for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
>
> 2) Gay is approved for copy and preferred over homosexual, except in clinical references or references to sexual activity.
>
> 3) The quotation marks will come off gay marriage (preferred over homosexual marriage).
>
> 4) Moderate is approved, but centrist is still allowed.
>
> 5) We will use illegal immigrants, not illegal aliens.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Patrick
Soon, they’ll drop “illegal” from “illegal immigrants.”
Then, it’ll be “undocumented immigrants.”
Then, they’ll just go the Harry Reid route and call them “undocumented Americans.”
***
Chris Kelly weighs in:
“Aliens” and “illegal aliens” are used in the U.S. Code many times. “Illegal immigrants” appears, as far as I can tell, only one time. And, while some might disagree, “immigrant” implies legality and in that way “illegal immigrant” is an oxymoron. It might also indicate that the Washington Times is starting down the slippery slope towards being like the Washington Post.
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Trackbacks
- Right Voices » Blog Archive » Why Change Words?
- BizzyBlog » America Needs You, Wesley Pruden
- / Jossip
- Mature Phone Sex
- Phone Sex
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Categories: Immigration, Political Correctness
Riehl World View
» Bet: Ratings Fail - Oprah/Obama Christmas Special
Mudville Gazette
» The five-year planNewsBusters.org
» Oprah To Do Primetime Christmas Special With The ObamasRiehl World View
» Dowd: Dem Elites Displeased With Obama As Palin RisesStop The ACLU
» SEALs Charged With Assault for Arresting Top TerroristPundit & Pundette
» How much did that "tent" cost?
The guys name is Patrick Touhy.
P. Touhy
P-Touhy.
Ptooie.
Once more the PC crowd spits on accuracy.
Looks like it’s time to have fun with that email distribution list, twtnews@washingtontimes.com.
They won’t have to slide very far before I cancel my subscription. I read them to get the news I can’t get elsewhere. I don’t need to waste time with another Post clone.
The correct term is not “gay marriage”, not “homosexual marriage”, but “same-sex pseudo-marriage“.
I started here: Patrick Tuohy ptuohy@washingtontimes.com
I had meant to cancel them when they hired the Editor from the Post….I got busy but I thank you Michelle for reminding me to take action on that today! I have just cancelled my subscription…and I am paid thru December.
#4- really it’s “queer partnering”
“Times” will now be replaced by “Post”.
txvet2 & Jaded, we just moved into the area and I took the Times thinking it would be better than the Post. What other paper is doable up here? I also paid for a year but haven’t been satisfied with it. I don’t know what other alternative there is. We do get the Post on Sundays though because the Times does not provide the flyers, coupons, etc. (well out here in PWC where I live). Do you two know any other alternatives? I was shocked when I saw that this morning.
Just like Orwell’s 1984. The Washington Slimes is telling their writers how to think, write, & cite. Like all other MSM bircage liners, THEY SUCK!
I would actually be fine with having either paper to wipe my butt with, but if you must have an alternative then might I suggest Charmin?
“News” is to be replaced with “opinionated slants.” Thanks.
LOL Raging Republican.
The Times makes a big for respectability! Finally!
Sometimes I get flak for being a Christian who supports gay marriage. But it’s much worse to be a Christian who subscribes to the Washington Times. You’re just giving your money to a tax cheat who claims he’s the Second Coming of Christ. Nothing blasphemous there!
Also, I never minded “illegal alien.” Changes 4 and 5 are of no concern to me. But 1-3 were sorely needed.
Another indication of the WashTimes’ downhill trajectory was that 1,000+ word oped Sunday on all the wonderful benefits of granting legal status to ILLEGAL ALIENS.
Its funny when the states that don’t border Mexico start talking about illegals like they have any idea what its like here.
You get incensed over the smallest things. In what way is illegal immigrants less negative than illegal aliens? Both are illegal.
In fact, they are (or intend to be) immigrants. You’re not mad at them because they overstay tourist visas, but because they want to make a life in the US, which is the definition of immigrant.
Fixed it for ya, Michelle.
Actually, journalistically speaking, together the two papers are ‘Toast’.
http://jonathangoodman.net/
Wow, lgm, is a professor…. well might I be the first to say, DUH! The funniest part however is that you even look like a democrat.
I don’t think that paper has ever done anything journalistically.
This is ridiculous. I subscribe to the Washington Times and had noticed recently that they were becoming more liberal in the way they were reporting stories.
This is outrageous about the changing of the illegal “aliens” to “immigrants.”
They must be trying to commit suicide because the only ones who generally subscribe to the Washington Times are those annoyed with the Washington Post. We can get the Examiner for free.
I and others will cancel our subscriptions if they get any more PC.
By the way, who is this “Patrick Tuohy” and why is he making the decisions?
Also, “gay marriage” is an oxymoron. The Washington Times was right in putting quotes around “marriage.”
We will use married gay, homosexual (clinical), centrist, illegal immigrant, Hillary supporters.
There, I just wrote a Wash times piece.
When can I expect my check to arrive?
Mixer 14, lol…
1. From now on we will refer to ourselves as The Washington Post Lite
2. Conservative is allowed, but must be in quotation marks.
Rusty, might want to choose a word other than “sorely” when addressing the subject of gay marriage. Just a thought.
Rusty,
How can two gays get “married?” The only way they could if it were a gay man marrying a lesbian. Otherwise, you need to put “marriage” in quotes.
Marriage: The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the formal declaration by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
Marriage presupposes a man and a woman.
How about alienated citizens?
How about aliens in Congress?
Illegal will never be out of my vocabulary! It is what it is.
A buddy of mine said it best the other day: “Calling illegal aliens ‘undocumented immigrants’ is like calling a drug dealer an ‘unlicensed pharmiscist’ “.
Rusty, do you receive flak for being a Christian OR being for gay unions?
Do not attempt to put words in my mouth. I am incensed with the illegal aliens because their supposed first step to becoming a legal immigrant is to break the law.
What if they came here on a valid visa and then immediately robbed a bank, or stole a car? Is one violation of the law less important than others?
I suppose the illegal who was driving the van that killed those four school kids in Minnesota was finally on her way to the immigration office to straighten her visa status out? My goat-smellin’ arse.
Very few commenters here are against legal immigration. Except for Native Americans, we all came from somewhere else. Geez, Louise!
Gabe, I just want all marriage (and divorce and custody) laws to apply to gay couples. Unfortunately, those laws don’t always apply to the term “civil union,” so it’s important that the term gay marriage is used.
And to me marriage presupposes two people in love who are committed to each other forever.
The former with my atheist/agnostic friends and the latter with people who leave comments on this site.
the question is if this POS is illegal or not We read stories like this all the time with hardly any follow up on their legal status. I don’t know if he’s illegal or not but everytime I read horrible acts like this, I think it should be the first question out of the reporters mouth.
Wrong. I’m not aware of anyone who is angry with legal immigration. We (and I think I speak for most of the people on this side of the issue) are angry because when visitors overstay their visas … or when aliens cross over illegally, the various governmental agencies (national, state, and local) don’t cooperate to kick them out.
Here are some recent updates to TWT style.
>
> 1) Hile Hilldabeast will be the headline word for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
>
> 2) freaking flamer is approved for copy and preferred over homosexual, except in clinical references or references to sexual activity.
>
> 3) The quotation marks will come off flaming fairy butt buddies (preferred over homosexual marriage).
>
> 4) Not commited is approved, but Neither here nor their is still allowed.
>
> 5) We will use illegal blood suckers, not illegal aliens.
Thanks.
All marriage laws DO apply to gay couples … provided that they consist of a gay man and a gay woman. Marriage laws also apply to unions that are prohibited from marriage, including same-sex couples (straight or gay), under-age couples, close relatives, and people who are already married. In the latter cases, the marriage laws apply in that said laws prohibit marital benefits to those unions.
Your personal definition is duly noted. However, among other things, the definition of marriage has never presupposed the idea that the partners must be in love with each other. And with the current divorce rate, it certainly doesn’t presuppose an eternal bond.
#27 On February 26th, 2008 at 5:22 pm, Gabe said:
“‘Sometimes I get flak for being a Christian who supports gay marriage.’
Rusty,
How can two gays get “married?” The only way they could if it were a gay man marrying a lesbian. Otherwise, you need to put “marriage” in quotes.
Marriage: The legal union of a man with a woman for life; the formal declaration by which act a man and a woman join in wedlock.
Marriage presupposes a man and a woman.”
Gabe:
Correct.
Was it not the Queen of Hearts who said, “Words mean what I want them to mean; no more, no less”?
It seems some folks believe that should in fact be the way to use words, traditional usage and dictionaries be damned.
Sounds not very different from considering the Constitution a “living, breathing” document, or some such drivel.
Living, breathing document…ohhh, my…I think I’m getting the vapors….
#35 On February 26th, 2008 at 5:37 pm, aunursa said:
“Wrong. I’m not aware of anyone who is angry with legal immigration. We (and I think I speak for most of the people on this side of the issue) are angry because when visitors overstay their visas … or when aliens cross over illegally, the various governmental agencies (national, state, and local) don’t cooperate to kick them out.”
Exactly.
I think many of us are angry also because we’re tired of the way some folks, because they do not like them, try to change rules midway through a game, in the wrong way.
If you do not like current immigration (and other) laws, don’t encourage people to ignore them or to flout them; rather, try to change it by the legislative route.
If you fail, too bad; get a grip and move on.
…try to change them…, rather.
Apologies.
I think he forgot one:
6) Republican is to be replaced with “spineless jellyfish panderer(s)” or “unprincipled weasel(s)” at the writer’s discretion.
I’m sorry to see the Washington Times go (even more) PC. Is this because basically all “journalists” have no core principles? At least, ones that they actually honor?
When will the politically correct intellectual morons quit bastardiseing the English language?
Gay = one who is happy and joyful, of either sex. All were gay with Christmas cheer.
The proper term is HOMOSEXUAL
Homosexual is one who has made the CHOICE to have sexual experiances with members of the same sex.
Same sex marriage = two of homosexual tendancies that prefere to shack up together, and remain in a monogamous relationship with a person of the same sex.
Ok they are right it is not Illegal Alien. The proper term is criminal/invader/or ILLEGAL PERSON OF OTHER THEN UNITED STATES ORIGION.
#42 On February 26th, 2008 at 5:53 pm, CarpiJugulum said:
“When will the politically correct intellectual morons quit bastardiseing the English language?”
Well said, CarpiJugulum.
BTW, great name! (Had more than a little Latin.)
If you were from Mars, you are illegal alien in the eyes of America, probaly no marriage, have men or women as partners, or no sex. Would some here think they should be entitled to all that our country offers to illegals or homosexuals from Mars?
L
I think the Clintons disprove that point daily.
Gabe said (#22):
You’ve arrived in wingnuttia when the locals think the Washington Times is liberal.
By the way, alien means someone not from this country while immigrant means someone who has moved here with the intention of staying. What you don’t want is people coming to the US with the intention of staying by without legal permission to do that. That’s illegal immigrant.
I had to read the email twice to get what they were saying.
Because of poor newspaper circulation, I believe they were saying this will be their new distribution system.
Can things be that bad? Sí se puede
Well technically, they did too, but earlier.
The salient point is they have done so illegally. Whether you call illegals “immigrants” or “the nice family next door”, you are still talking about lawbreakers, here illegally, who need to be sent home. The fact the you even give a rip whether they are referred to as alien or immigrant tells me you approve of them breaking the law and you want them to stay.
What was the previous headline word? Crone?
As in the gay physicians are studying STDs in homosexuals?
What about air quotes? May we still use those?
ROTFLMAO, but true. I have notice a lot of L.A. Times being dumped outside our gated community. Nobody ever picks them up and I don’t think they were ordered so this is their new trick to keep the numbers up? I’m not a lawyet but I would think this is illegal. You know, if I take out an ad in their paper, I want the circulation numbers to be right. Not 2 million unread papers sitting on the street to be picked up and tossed into the trash. (that’s where they should deliver them in the first place)
Personally I prefer illegal invaders. It appears the Washington Times has joined the rest of the dinosaur media marching into the tar pits of history. Too bad they used to be a good source for conservative news.
“For the first time in my adult lifetime (sic)”, I’m proud of lgm. He hit the nail on the head, even though he didn’t mean to.
I wouldn’t be quite so quick to judge the Washington Times. Granted, these changes are not welcome, and will dilute the paper’s political message. But it is still basically a conservative paper, in spite of this and other lapses. Nevertheless, we have to watch it closely, and let them know that we do not like these changes. But this is just one change. I agree though, that if things do get worse in the future, the paper will diminish in value, and ultimately, at the bottom of the slippery slope, it may become little better than the rest of the MSM.
Fixed.
PC has gotten totaly out of hand
re·tard·ed (rĭ-tär’dĭd)
adj.
Often Offensive. Affected with mental retardation.
Often offensive to who?, but affected with retardation is not?
queer (kwîr)
adj., queer·er, queer·est.
1.Deviating from the expected or normal; strange
2.Offensive Slang. Homosexual
Offensive Slang to who? bieng Homosexual is queer it is deviating from the expected or normal
gay (gā)
adj., gay·er, gay·est.
1.Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
2.Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
Gay Marriage is defined as same sex marriage? what? why is’nt part of the definition having a cheerful, lighthearted, exciting marriage?
When did being a homosexual start being the #1 definition to gay? and the definition of homosexual goes into a disortation on what it is.
illegal immigration
“Second-class citizen”
“Illegal alien” and “Illegal aliens” redirect here. For other uses, see Illegal aliens
second class citizen? there illegal how can they be a second class citizen? how long will it be until the definition of Illegal Alien turns into offensive slang.
Now I know American english is a melting pot of languages from around the world but for the love of pete their are some screwed up people in this world that not only want to control your actions but now your speech, my message to them is get off the bus!
This is a reflection of the fact that she’s running for something. When she’s running for election, it’s “Hillary CLINTON”, to emphasize her political connections. Otherwise, it’s Hillary RODHAM clinton, to emphasize that she’s daddy’s little girl who is married to a slug.
terrig
There is NOTHING but might I suggest many wonderful conservative websites….Michelle of course…Redstate…Lucianne is much better than Drudge…and just about everybody they link to in their favorites…you get your news with a little bit of common sense attached to it….and I always check FOX News website…no commentary on there just the news.
Oh, let Hillary get her wish to be addressed as Clinton. MSM defers to Obama’s wish that he be not addressed as Barack Hussein Obama. Why should the MSM accede to the latter and not the former when it comes to how they want to be addressed?
However, since the memo was not written to me, I shall refer to them as I wish: Barack Hussein Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, in a good day!
What a shame. I used to read the Times as an antidote to the Washington Compost.
#48 On February 26th, 2008 at 6:43 pm, AlohaGuy said:
“Except for Native Americans, we all came from somewhere else.
Well technically, they did too, but earlier.”
Well said.
You beat me to it.
Just wow.
From the left, the party of immoral life, no brain (per Ann), No God in their life, yet the unhinged audacity to say Republicans are unprincipled.
Now that’s the kettle calling the snow black.
LGM as part Native American I can assure you that the illegals do not assimilate as previous groups have. They even bring their flags and post them in their yards. Their kids tag up all the buildings and disrespect many Native American historical cites. Why does this group do not want to assimilate? I have my answers but they won’t agree with yours I bet. You would think they would show more respect in a Native American Reservation here but they don’t. Don’t you ever see any of this or do you live in a rich enclave?
I long for the days of innocence when the prankish antics of Richard Nixon were considered serious enough, at least by the lib media, to be grounds for impeachment.
Now we have serious corruption so widespread in Washington that the politicians are willing to sell out our country for a few votes and some cheap labor. Our “representatives” are no more responsive to the people than any African tinpot dictator.
I haven’t picked up a newspaper in months. I found I get much better news on the internet, both liberal and conservative. I may visit the Times website occasionally, usually to look up a columnist. I can pick and choose my news and ignore stuff that I have no interest. I feel much more informed on what is really going on, than getting from papers or radio.
rusty gives Christians a bad name, and should bare some responsibility for his trollness.
I’ll leave the “brokeback” comments to others that can “slap trolls” around better than me.
GSP
The DC Examiner is your best bet in the post-Pruden era (if you can tolerate about ~20% of the Examiner’s op-ed space being given to DailyKos, et al). They cover local news almost as well as TWT, still far better than the CommPost, but more importantly, they’re doing an excellent job of exposing tens of thousands of unsuspecting DC liberals to an honest-to-goodness balanced marketplace of ideas, all free of charge.
And, we see, yet, another move toward the left in America.
Does anyone think a paper not referring to a sitting senator by her first name in headlines was inappropriate?
For all you Times fans, I don’t know what to tell you. As I said previously, if you like giving your hard-earned dollars to an convicted felon who claims he is the Second Coming of Christ, by all means, go nuts. Being a false prophet is basically the most serious sin in the Bible. I honestly believe buying that a Christian who subscribes to that paper is “living in sin” more than a married gay couple.
And for the people who don’t like Touhy, check out the guys he’s replacing. Much more detail at this liberal site. That’s the guy you want to throw your support behind?
I’ll never read the Times because I refuse to support the blasphemous Unification Church. But they’re making journalistic strides. This is a step in the right direction.
And as for the change #5 (in boldface), at least they didn’t switch to “undocumented workers.” As long as “illegal” is in there I don’t see the problem.
shooter posted in #61:
shooter #61, I am a conservative – I am not beholden to any political party but instead to a philosophy of limited Federal government to give more individual liberty as set forth in our Constitution and as espoused by our Founding Fathers.
So shooter #61, you think the Republicans with GWB now the head of the party, and John McCain who will be the head, are principled?
You think the way they have spent and spent is principled? Certainly not conservative principles!
You think the way McCain voted against GWB’s tax cuts, and his belief that we need more not less government is principled? These are not conservative principles!
You think that McCain swallowing the globaloney whole and proposing government programs and spending to combat so-called “global warming” is principled? Certainly not a conservative principle!
You think the way they tried (and are still trying) to ram “shamnesty” down our throats is principled? Certainly not a conservative principle!
You think the McCain-Feingold bill, and the fact that GWB signed it and did not veto it, is principled? Certainly that does not show conservative principles!
what next? i’m waiting for stormfront to mandate “african americans”, “ms.”, and “persons of color”.
this is all because of obama.
Guess what?
Funny how that happens….
This is what happens when you hire an exec editor from the Post. Hey, TimesPost: just remember, there are other sources these days. If you want to join the rest of the newspaper universe on its circulation curve, keep it up.
Mule and gsp, as with most blatant homophobes, my guess is that you two geniuses have some latent tendencies you’ve probably already explored.
IMHO, this whole thread is a big “who cares”?
Rusty says:
Where do you stand on the 6th commandment of God and abortion.
dakine, why are you guessing about something you do not know about? Trolling for insults?
Ah, but Jesus emphasized in the Gospels that the First Commandment takes priority over all others! “Do not have any other gods before Me.” Moon is a violator!
As for the 6th, scientifically abortion is not the killing of a human, so the word “murder” doesn’t apply. But, I mean, why play semantics with the Bible. I would never urge anyone to get an abortion. I would even find some adoption literature. But it’s not my choice nor should it be.
Also, I noticed someone from Plymouth, MA found my blog by clicking on my name on this comment thread. I went to high school there, so maybe we know each other. Make yourself known!
Rusty, after reading your comments I clicked on your name to go see your blog myself. After reading about you getting drunk, ordering pizza and taking a crap in the park, I will not take you seriously anymore.
And this quote from you
Exactly what is it the killing of? My wife gave birth to humans. Aborting them wouldn’t have made them less human. Good dodge though.
Read their comments Ron. I don’t like bigots. What are you trolling for?
Oh, sorry dakine. I did not realize that by not liking bigots it gave you license to speculate. My bad. If I am ever in your neck of the woods I will stop and polish your crystal ball as punishment.
#76 On February 27th, 2008 at 2:26 pm, Ron Rockstar said:
“Rusty, after reading your comments I clicked on your name to go see your blog myself. After reading about you getting drunk, ordering pizza and taking a crap in the park, I will not take you seriously anymore.”
Ron, I will, with a supreme effort, resist the temptation to ask you whether, by that last clause, you mean to say that you had actually been taking that poster seriously until you had checked out his blog.
There, I feel better that I didn’t say that.
“And this quote from you
’scientifically abortion is not the killing of a human’
Exactly what is it the killing of? My wife gave birth to humans. Aborting them wouldn’t have made them less human. Good dodge though.”
Ron, you beat me to it.
By that statement, that “scientifically abortion is not the kiling of a human”, that poster goes on record for everyone to see, and declares loudly which worldview he adheres to.
As I relentlessly say over and over and over again, a person who adheres to that worldview will never, ever, ever understand why he is so very, so cosmically wrong.
Imagine, rationalizing that abortion is not murder, because “scientifically abortion is not the kiling of a human”…Ouch!
Such rationalization sure looks like an attempt to define abortion as other than what it actually and clearly is, in order to justify the secularists’ support for unrestricted, almost casual access to abortion.
It sure looks that, deep down, secularists, even as they deny the existence of an immortal soul (remember which worldview they adhere to) have that nagging, gnawing feeling that abortion just might be very terribly wrong after all; therefore, the linguistic gymnastics, the pulling out of thin air the “scientifically abortion is not the kiling of a human” statement; so that, deep down, they won’t feel terrible about what they say, and what they support.
It’s very sad, really.
granite, I was posting more for the lurkers than for Rusty’s sake. I think he actually believes what he is saying, so trying to work common sense into a debate for his sake is useless. Michelle has a hot blog here and there are many more lurkers than posters. We are fortunate to have the privilege as sign-up is quick ,and few and far between. Most people abide by the rules here so there ain’t a lot of turn-over. Your statement at the end ” It’s very sad, really.” is true. These are the folks that did not wince when they took away Terry Shiavo’s water and her lips cracked and her tongue swelled to near suffocation. Maybe your comments will open some lurkers eyes.
Sorry-
Hate to disappoint you dakine, but I am very straight, love the opposite gender and waiting until marriage to celebrate the union between husband and wife.
Disagreeing with homosexuals or bisexuals because of their actions doesn’t make a person fear them-just enlightened enough not to be brainwashed by school teachers and college professors to accept deviancy as normal.
GSP
btw-Got accused of this in my last duty station and it po’d the command that they couldn’t scm three of us for “gay porn”
Bible makes it easy Rusty because the Lord says He knows us before we go into our mother’s womb. Obviously you would not be ashamed of supporting abortions and telling the Lord all about it. I bet He will be impressed.
Ron, it’s called sarcasm, satire, what have you. I think it’s telling that your first instinct was to question my admittedly sort of lame attempt at humor rather than calling out a couple of obvious homophobic bigots.
gsp, like I said, you’re a homophobe and a bigot, and hiding behind goofy religious dogma as a justification for your bigotry makes you a coward as well.
homophobe; homo noun/prefix-human race
phobic verb/root word-fear of.
homophobe/homophobic: fear of the human race…Slur used by gay rights activists and their supporters to styfile dissent.
I think that sums up the gay perspective arguement.
Lets see-
A) Philadelphia 5
B) Catholic Adoption Agency in Massachustes shut down because of their refusal to place children with gays-even when they referred gays to gay friendly adoption agencies.
C) Forced indoc in gay rights at our nations colleges (see MM blog for some great examples-hint deleware)
D) Campus speech codes that forbid any critism of pc protected groups and permit open hostility to Christians, white males, and gun owners.
E) Selective enforcement of the application of hate crimes laws where a persons opinions and religious beliefs can be held against them if the victim of a crime is of a protected class.
F) The Molson street festival, and for a matter of a fact-any gay pride parade.
When a person is willing to stand on thier prinincples, there are very few people that would be willing to that, and I have been forced to make those kinds of decisions twice that could have costed me my job and freedom in the last 12 years; I personally challenge any gay rights activist to be able to say that with a straight face(no pun intended) and back it up with facts.
No my dear dakine; a coward is one who when confronted with adversity, slinks away and chooses to ignore the danger.
A chilvarious gentleman however acknowledges their responsibilty and stands up for what is right in the face of the popular opinion-even if it costs them their career, job or freedom.
GSP
P.S. Read the various threads and you will find more enlightened indivduals like 30 pcs, Jim M, Alphonse, greenfaire, among others and of course our gracious hostess: MM!