# Digest urth.v030.n098 *The Urth list — 1 messages, 1 voices, 27 Apr 2001* > Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright > in each message remains with the person who wrote it. > Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original > archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than > retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact. --- ### Dan'l Danehy-Oakes *27 Apr 2001, 09:10* > William Ansley wrote: > I felt I should warn people on this list of a facet of the books > that was potentially offensive; that was unnecessary. All of the > people who post messages to this list are obviously too > sophisticated to be offended by any such thing. Au contraire: I am in fact too sophisticated _not_ to be offended by religious bigotry, whether it favors or disfavors mine own belief-system. I find, e.g., books like "This Present Darkness" quite as intolerable as, I suspect, I should find the Pullmans. On the other hand, you also wrote (in another message): > ... I also thought the armored bears ... were very well done. And I have to admit, I'm curious about any British writer cosmpolitan enough to write about the typically American concern with our right to keep and arm bears. Even the best British writers tend to be a bit provincial. (Of course, this is true of American writers, too. And French writers. And... Come to think of it, excessive cosmopolitanism is almost always a flaw in a writer...) --Dan'l ---