Wes, You raise some intriguing questions there, and they are as provocative as they are challenging. I expected nothing less, Agent Britton. Well, I don't think the answers are supposed to be simple or simplistic. Certainly what's over the line to some wouldn't be to others, and we all draw our lines differently. In fact, as you suggest, we draw different lines for ourselves in different settings. You might happily share a blue joke with a group of old school chums, but suppress it when Aunt Martha and her sewing circle are in the room. There's no danger to free speech. You're not being a hypocrite. You're just being smart enough not emerge from the room with a knitting needle sticking out of the base of your neck. All right, that's an oversimplification. And if the postings of the last two days have proven anything, it's that there are no easy answers. Still, foolish as it may sound, let me take a swing at this. And let me stress that, just as when I'm writing reviews for the newspaper, I'm only speaking for myself. This is the way I see it, and I'm not suggesting this be the philosophy for the Forum, the classroom or the world of Twain scholarship. Your concerns are well-stated, Wes, and point to the proper introspection. But reading and re-reading your posting, I can see a great deal of common ground. As you well know, I work for a newspaper covering the television industry ("Hey, how did he get in here, anyway?!"). Many of you on this forum draw their daily bread from the world of academia. None of us is a stranger to the often-chilling effects of political correctness. We've seen our share. But I hasten to add (watch me haste) that I don't believe this is an example of political correctness gone kafloohey. Yes, we teach students to look beyond "hurt feelings" when dealing with literature, but we also teach them to use words carefully. They are powerful. So we teach them not to use words wantonly and recklessly. We also teach them context. We teach them to look beyond the incendiary stuff to the greater messages, themes, techniques and intentions. I believe the members of this Forum are tremendously good at that. No, I take that back. I know they're tremendously good at that. The concerns voiced from all quarters over the last few days were not simply about words; they were about struggling to put those words into the context of a greater discussion. At least, that's the way I would characterize it. I see no contradiction between this discussion and the ongoing efforts to understand Twain's controversial choices in "Huckleberry Finn" (although conclusions may and will vary). I'm not a teacher, but I suspect those of you who are also stress respect for other individuals and viewpoints in the classroom. As you say, Wes, there are rules in the classroom, just as there are in debate or reasoned conversation. It's not an anything-goes situation. No one would defend the hurling of a racial epithet at a student, following it up with the suggestion they just look beyond "hurt feelings." We provide students with rules. Somewhere along the line, we've started equating rules with censorship. But rules are like anything else; they come in all shapes and shades, good and bad. The good ones are guides, showing us the way to communication and understanding. And I'm talking about understanding here, not agreement. Look, as a critic, I deal with debate and disagreement every day -- from readers, from the targets of criticism, from other critics. I encourage it. I think you're a poor critic if you believe your job is to make up somebody's mind for him or her. The expression I shoot down immediately is, "I hate to disagree with you. . . " By all means, disagree with me! Please disagree with me! I'm not here to do your thinking for you. You're taking up valuable resources on this planet -- water, air, food. You make up your own mind. It's a well-practiced rant, but effective. I think that arguing about literature and art should be as raucous and fun as arguing about sports. We can have at least as much fun as two guys arguing about whether or not the Sox should have traded a young infielder for an aging pitcher. It can rough. It can get as controversial in interpretation and analysis as you want. But I have one rule. I'll respond and engage and respect, as long as there's respect coming from the other side. You get personally offensive with me. . . oh-oh, guess what? We're done. I'm not going to go there with you, and you're sure not going there with me -- not for long. Sorry, you're dealing with an individual, and that's what makes all this give and take stuff so darn puzzling. So many individuals, so little time. But isn't that our ongoing challenge as a community, a society? We're allowing for this all time, and it ain't a bad thing. And I'm not proposing respect in a hallowed, English tea cup, stiff-upper-lip kind of old school way. I'm not talking some scholarly ideal. It's a bit more basic than that. Wes, you write that the point of the "Columbine" assignment "is to explore the content, tone, style, and execution of the movie -- if it's offensive, why?" I would contend that's precisely the approach being taken by the vast majority of Forum members on a vast majority of topics. And I agree that not every verbal gaffe should be treated as a high crime. As I wrote in the last posting, the overreaction to misstatements or ill-chosen words typically is worse than the gaffe. Tolerance is a two-way street, as is understanding (or at least it should be). But, as Kent just wrote, I don't think that's the issue here. I can hear you smiling, Wes, which probably means you disagree. As already stated, got no problem with that.