A Gay Old Time - A short while back I sarcastically referred to the Washington Times as a friend to homosexuals everywhere. I had intended to link that comment to this article in Metro Weekly exploring the "other" DC paper's refusal to adopt the term gay in its style guide, instead using the clinical-sounding homosexual. This rigorous policy extends even to replacing words in letters to the editor:

"Because the Washington Times uses only sturdy English, " Rarey says via e-mail, "this paper avoids using what Mencken described as ‘greasy, meaningless words.’ Thus, the word gay -- which, according to the OED, has meant mirthful since Middle English -- is not used as a euphemistic synonym for homosexuals or homosexuality, except in quote marks."

Obviously the Times is not a friend at all. Its approach smacks, more than anything else, of mean-spiritedness, in the style of a bigot who's still upset that those queers ruined a perfectly good word. Isn't it just sad?