Was that accurate or overstatement? You never did answer.
I didn't answer because I didn't have anything to say. You answered my question so I guess I could have said "thank you," but I tend not to take up a post just to say "thank you" because I consider both that and "you're welcome" assumed.
Since you have asked me to parse and assess your statement: if it was an overstatement, it wasn't much of one. I thought the use of deeply twice was a tad much, but not worth making an issue over. Since "insult" already is a pretty strong word meaning "a GROSS indignity," then "deeply insulting" would have to be downright horrific. I would say that, in both cases, the degree of insult was well short of horrific. I would only call them insults because the targets of them took them as such. Not everyone would. Some people might think it just fine, even appealing, to be projected as reading sadistic porn or engaging in a dalliance with Chris. Some would want their "honor" defended and some wouldn't. In this case the targets felt insulted so the charges were insults.
"Scurrilous" is a bit dramatic but not inaccurate. The elements of "dirty" and "offensive" were there. "Scurrilous," however, makes "insulting" redundant. It rather makes "personal" redundant, as well.
Lastly, there is an implied "charge" in both cases.
So insulting, personal, scurrilous, and charge seem warranted to me although just "scurrilous charge" would have been adequate to convey the full meaning.
Arncha glad you asked? <g>
I noticed that that statement was much milder than the one I originally asked you about, which was: "You intentionally and maliciously grievously insulted E." |
