Oh, Fouey-Louis, you do need to present just the facts.

And those dopes you're concerned about educating are your patrons!

What happens when the information provided is offensive to you and
your loved ones?  Is it ok then?

Please don't answer.  We'll be off on a toothless-dog-chasing-its-tail
tangent.

Somebody chose to infuse the latest follicle in the anus topic as a
top event, and it portends to be offensive to others.  It is not in
and, of itself Museum fodder (unless somebody here has a word museum
or a Scandinavian Museum or a political museum), it is NOT a top
event, and it is offensive to a good chunk of the populace who has had
that look-alike word thrust in its face in hostile manner for two
hundred years.

The dopes, from where I sit, are the ones who refuse to try to
understand.

This from the kid who likes to learn big new words.  heck, my son of
immigrant parents (who was the brunt of all those "cute little Pollock
jokes", which stem from the old Moron jokes, which you wouldn't want
to use in this day of the ADA) used to pay me for the good ones I
picked up as incentive to keep learning.  If it didn't hurt others, I
MIGHT use it.  But this dope knows better.





---Peter Youngman <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
> re:  Indigo Nights' note:
> Oh, super, now we've gotten onto PC.  Well then, in a museum
context, I
> think an important element of museum interpretation is the
presentation of
> straight, accurate facts.  I think that museums that only present
> information favorable to one philosophy, so as to not offend anyone,
> stink.  I know that, while I think that museums should educate,
plenty of
> other people believe they should re-educate.  I think all of those
people
> are dopes--oops, sorry, those people are misled.
>

==
Indigo Nights
[log in to unmask]

_________________________________________________________
DO YOU YAHOO!?
Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com