To: Bill who wrote (102435 ) 4/29/2005 3:01:06 PM From: Grainne Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807 There are no different rules for Ionesco or me. I must say, though, that I take serious subjects more seriously than what I would call fairly ridiculous squabbles about light subjects--Camilla Parker Bowles and Pamela Anderson would be examples of light subjects at Feelies. The burden of proof for light subjects is light, I guess I would have to say. No links are required. I cannot even believe we are still talking about this--I find it quite boring. But as I wrote yesterday, Ionesco teaches teenagers and has older children. I understand that another teacher said he didn't believe the Pamela Anderson statement was true, but I also think the communication between teenaged girls and their female teachers may possibly reveal more information about such things. You are entitled to express your opinions here. You could have said many things about Pamela Anderson along the lines of the fact that you just do not like her at all, or find her unattractive. Those would be fine opinions to have. But what you did instead was specifically state that she is a moron and go on to describe exactly what quantifies a moron. It is fairly easy to dispute your statement that she is a moron, based on things that are publicly known about Pamela's interests and activities, and statements from people who have interviewed her or worked with there. Do you see the difference there? You do not have to justify your opinion--it is based on whatever your feelings are. If you make very specific statements, someone might challenge you on them. If we are going to spend endless hours squabbling about nothing, I might just take some time off. This is so silly and petty that I really tire of it easily, and spring and gardening and my dogs beckon me outside.