Re: (Back-Talk) Kathy Lee Gifford

"aine" <aine_nicneven@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "sarchasm" <sar.ch...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> "Noinden" <thear...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > "aine" <aine_nicne...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > "Noinden" <thear...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> > > > "ren" <ren1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> > > > Where does she get-off calling us Pagans bad and nasty when she is

> > > > the
> > > > one who runs a Honduran child slave-labor camp.
> >.
>
> > > It was not directed at Neopagans, as anyone who watched the video
clip
> > > can see. It was not that funny either.
>
> > I do not agree. I hardly ever read or hear the term "Neo" pagan by
> > anyone including pagans except by Neo Druids.
>
> Maybe neochristians are now calling anyone who isn't neochristian a
> neopagan, eh?
>
>
>
> > Neopaganism is the accepted term, it has been since Uncle Gerry
> > onwards.
>
> Accepted by whom, those who use the term to identify others?
Academically?
> By the neopagans themselves, (or mainly just Bonewits)?
>
>
> > It is not my fault that people in the scene get lazy about it
> > (or delusional).
>
> If neochristians can call themselves christian, there's no reason
> non-christians cannot call themselves whatever they like. Whether or not
> they are what they call themselves is a whole 'nother kettle of electric
> eels.
>
>
> > Similarly as I have pointed out the accepted usage of
> > the word (since the middle ages forward) is more likely what she was
> > talking about than Neopagans, or Paleopagans.
>
> That still means she was being disparaging of non-christians. Whether or
> not any pagans were disparaged by her remarks is up to them,
individually
> isn't it? Some take offense, some do not. One could wonder if Kathy Lee
> would take offense at being termed as a 'nasty neochristian'.
>

> hehehehe...funny. Nice points Sar.
>

My guess is that she feels that pagans, (et al), can be as safely
disparaged 
as could purple-skinned tripeds from Tau Ceti or, Roman Mithras
wor****ppers.