"Mudblood" vs. "Muggle"

[Audra1976 at aol.com]

In a message dated 1/14/03 2:58:44 AM, bboy_mn at yahoo.com writes:
"Catlady (Rita Prince Winston)
<catlady at w...>" <catlady at w...> wrote:
<< I was torn between a small smile of laughter and a 
> small moue of disapproval.  >>
>
> Mudblood is a statement of someone's derogatory and insulting opinion. 
While we can use it because it is a fake word about fictional people,
it is still not an true or accurate description, or a proper
description, and it is derogatory and insulting.  >>


How bout if I just shorten it to 'Bloods?  <JK>  Alright, alright, alright, 
fine.  I was only trying to lighten things up.  I know we all take the books 
seriously here, but I have to say, this is an awakening.  I'm frankly a 
little shocked that people feel strongly about this fictional insult.  Once 
again, I was only trying to be humorous, not insulting or derogatory, but 
apparently I'm the only person who finds any humor in this debate.

So "Muggleborn" is the term of choice then?  Well then what about the word 
"Muggle" anyway?  It's a slang term, and I say that speaking as a 
MAGICALLY-CHALLENGED human being myself, I find this word to be derogatory.  
We don't use it to refer to ourselves.  Only wizards use it to refer to us, 
the unmagical masses.  What exactly does it imply?  "Muggle."  It certainly 
does not sound like anything pleasant, does it?  Yet we all throw that term 
around on the list constantly without even blinking.  So how about it, all 
you opposers of the word "Mudblood"?  Will you stand up for us "Muggles" as 
well?

Audra