In article , Jon 
O'Brien  writes
>In article <hcfibp$nmt$1@news.eternal-september.org>, gfourwwk@tesco.net
>(Steve Terry) wrote:
>
>> "Offence exists in the mind of the speaker" JP Sartre
>
>I imagine there was a context in which that made some sense. Removed from
>that context it makes none. Would you care to explain?
>
There is the  argument that the emotions which you feel when you react 
to someone else's behaviour are yours and are your own responsibility. 
Do you follow this argument, Mr O'Brien?



-- 
Peter

In article <EdVC$ZnbvJ7KFw7b@godthoms.demon.co.uk>,
peter@double.demon.co.uk.invalid (Peter) wrote:

> There is the  argument that the emotions which you feel when you 
> react to someone else's behaviour are yours and are your own 
> responsibility. Do you follow this argument, Mr O'Brien?

So "Offence exists in the mind of the hearer" is what's actually meant.
That makes more sense. However, the laws governing slander and liable
suggest that M. Sartre's view is a minority one.

Jon.

"Jon O'Brien"  wrote in message
news:memo.20091101124538.4960A@here.there.everywhere.co.uk...
> In article <EdVC$ZnbvJ7KFw7b@godthoms.demon.co.uk>,
> peter@double.demon.co.uk.invalid (Peter) wrote:
>
>> There is the  argument that the emotions which you feel when you
>> react to someone else's behaviour are yours and are your own
>> responsibility. Do you follow this argument, Mr O'Brien?
>
> So "Offence exists in the mind of the hearer" is what's actually meant.
> That makes more sense.
>
It looses something in translation from French
But it's you that's doing the speaking about being offended
>
> However, the laws governing slander and liable
> suggest that M. Sartre's view is a minority one.
> Jon.
>
What's the law which is created by the normally alienated to with
existential reality?

Steve Terry

"Jon O'Brien"  wrote in message 
news:memo.20091101124538.4960A@here.there.everywhere.co.uk...


> suggest that M. Sartre's view is a minority one.


Should've gone to Specsavers.

-- 
Dave (Sgt. Pepper)       Epsom, England
     My photo galleries at  http://www.pbase.com/davecq
    "I will not tolerate intolerance ... Doh!!"

In article , Jon 
O'Brien  writes
>In article <EdVC$ZnbvJ7KFw7b@godthoms.demon.co.uk>,
>peter@double.demon.co.uk.invalid (Peter) wrote:
>
>> There is the  argument that the emotions which you feel when you
>> react to someone else's behaviour are yours and are your own
>> responsibility. Do you follow this argument, Mr O'Brien?
>
>So "Offence exists in the mind of the hearer" is what's actually meant.
>That makes more sense. However, the laws governing slander and liable
>suggest that M. Sartre's view is a minority one.
>
Ah - Sartre seems - I haven't read his work - to have been dealing with 
offence, whereas slander and libel law deals not with offence but with 
damage to reputation.

An allegation about you from me might be offensive if made only to 
yourself, but possibly slanderous or libellous if made to some else - a 
third party.


Sarte  - almost mis-typed as Satyr -  was dealing with the philosophical 
and emotional; the law deals essentially with loss or damage.


-- 
Peter