The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel Strikes Again: Scholar Censored Because He's an Ex-Convict

by
Reinhold Aman

Lori Price, a very bright and honest journalist, published an article about today's increased use of vulgar language in The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel of May 22, 2006, which was posted on that rag's Website on May 21, 2006.

To avoid being hassled for copyright violation by the uptight editors at that paper, I am merely listing the URL for that article entitled "Swearing up a Blue streak: Curses flow like sewers, assault the ear and numb the soul. Has everyone forgotten to hold their tongue?"

http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=425996

Ms. Price interviewed me for 30-45 minutes by phone and found my learnèd comments useful for her article. However, when it was published, my comments and all references to me were missing.

Surprised by this unusual development, I asked Ms. Price and learned that her editrix, Jill Williams (and probably George Stanley, the censorship-happy Managing Editor of the stodgy MJS) had requested that Ms. Price remove my (clean) comments and my name simply because I'm an ex-convict, which to those two silly buggers, Williams and Stanley, caused "concern." I could not believe this absurdity and pressed Williams and Stanley for answers regarding their unprecedented censorship but of course received just disingenuous bullshit replies.

For your amusement and amazement, I've added below my e-mails to and from Jill Williams and George Stanley. Since neither Williams's nor Stanley's e-mails to me were marked "Confidential" or "For Your Eyes Only," I feel free to share their weaseling and disingenuousness with you.

Upon learning of that paper's unheard-of reason to suppress information I gave to their journalist, I sent the following e-mail to Ms. Williams:

Aman's E-mail to Sub-Editrix Jill Williams

Subject: JS Censorship of Lori Price's article
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=425996 (May 21, 2006)
Date: Sun, 28 May 2006
From: Reinhold (Rey) Aman
To: Jill Williams <jwilliams@journalsentinel.com>
Assistant Managing Editor/Features and Entertainment,
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel [hereafter: MJS]
CC: Lori Price <LPRICE@journalsentinel.com>, Nancy Mack <namack@uwm.edu>

BACKGROUND
Since 1973, I have given countless interviews to print, radio and TV journalists -- NBC-TV, ABC-TV, PBS-Radio, New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times, Chicago Tribune, Time, Newsweek, American Journalism Review, Times (London), International Herald Tribune (Paris), and many other world-class media -- about my world-renowned specialties: the linguistic, psychological and social aspects of verbal aggression, slang, curses, blasphemy and the like (Latin "maledicta" or "bad words").

In all these years, it has never happened that my comments and name were censored or purged by a sub-editor experiencing "concerns" about quoting me.

Not being a publicity seeker and having shunned most American journalists for the past 20 years or so, I reluctantly agreed to be interviewed by Ms. Lori Price of the MJS for her article, "Swearing up a Blue streak." However, Ms. Price's intelligent and thoughtful questions convinced me that this interview would not be another waste of my time. Thus we spoke for some 30-45 minutes, during which Ms. Price showed genuine interest in the topic she was researching and in my comments.

MJS CENSORSHIP
The MJS has a long and sad history of infantile censorship, which I have been observing and commenting on for 35 years. Richard Leonard, the former editor of "The Milwaukee Journal," censored even nationally syndicated cartoons and was as absurdly zealous about "protecting" his readers from reality as was infamous Abe Rosenthal of The New York Times, whose ludicrous censorship is legendary.

Censoring "offensive" words to protect the Sensitive Ones among a paper's readers is understandable (there are intelligent and stupid ways of censoring), but censoring a scholar's knowledgeable comments and suppressing his name because of some personal hang-up -- as MJS editors did in this case -- is outrageous, prejudicial, and dishonest: it deprived the readers of valuable information.

After Ms. Price's article was posted on the Web, several professors of linguistics mailed me her article and wondered why I had not been interviewed, not only because I'm an ex-Milwaukeean but also the best-known expert in this field. After I had read the article, I too wondered what happened to my detailed comments about the historical developments and causes of the current foul-mouthed generation.

As I doubted that Ms. Price would engage in such a ridiculous act of censorship after our cordial interview, I consequently suspected that some narrow-minded editor was responsible for making Ms. Price's article "Aman-frei."

To find out what had happened, I e-mailed Ms. Price a polite query, asking why my information did not appear in her article, who was responsible for this deletion, and the reason for this unprecedented censorship. Because her first loyalty is, understandably, to her employer and editor(s), Ms. Price informed me merely that she did not suppress my comments but that some editor(s) asked her to delete all references to me because of concerns about my conviction.

If I understand her vague comment correctly, "conviction" refers to my sentence twelve years ago in Federal prison for having ridiculed and exposed that incompetent and nasty hick-town judge, Marianne Becker (now burning in hell), who got her revenge by claiming I "threatened" her and then siccing the Feds on me. Mine was certainly a horrendous crime, and, according to your mindset, a vile criminal like me must therefore never be quoted or mentioned in your fine publication to avoid freaking out your sensitive, law-abiding citizens.

Ms. Price kindly supplied the name of her editor, and I assume that you, Ms. Williams, are one of the editors who instructed Ms. Price to delete any reference to me.

IMPROVING MS. PRICE'S SKILLS
As her editrix, mentor and supervisor, Ms. Williams, it is your duty to polish the journalistic skills of your new underling, Ms. Lori Price. Even though her writing, grammar and style are flawless, her wit and interviewing skills impeccable, and her broad-minded and cosmopolitan outlook adds zest to the stodgy Journal Sentinel, she still lacks the most important skill for becoming a typical MJS journalist: the "MJS Mentality." Your paper's credo, established decades ago by former editor Richard "Dick[head]" Leonard, can be summarized as follows: "Censor, censor, censor; be as narrow-minded and provincial as possible; and assume that all readers are as sexually repressed and morally ambiguous as I am."

Once Ms. Price will have been brought up to -- or rather, down to -- the MJS Standards of Journalism, she will never again interview or quote an ex-convict or shock your readers with such lurid reports as were published by Jeffrey Weiss, reporter for the Religion section of The Dallas Morning News:

http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/blasphemy.html

or by Assistant Managing Editor Lori Robertson of The American Journalism Review:

http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/ajr.html

both of whom irresponsibly and callously interviewed, quoted, and even named that ex-con Reinhold Aman. Luckily for the good readers of the MJS, his shocking name will never sully the pristine pages of your paper.

QUESTIONS
Now I have a few over-lapping questions for you, Ms. Williams, which I ask you to share with other editors involved in this absurd censorship.

(1) Why did you ask Ms. Price to delete any reference to my informative comments and me?

(2) What does my short stay at a minimum-security prison camp ending in 1994 have to do with my well-known scholarly expertise in the field Ms. Price was researching?

(3) What "concerns" did you have about publishing my comments and name?

(4) What devastating activities did you envision would happen if you had allowed my comments and name to appear in Ms. Price's feature? Mass cancellations of subscriptions by shocked or repulsed readers? Enraged demonstrations in front of your building, with demands that you never again print the name "Reinhold Aman" in your paper?

(5) Would you experience the same "concerns" for your paper's tender readers if the names "Nelson Mandela" or "Alexander Solzhenitsyn" appeared in your section and ask the journalist to delete any reference to my fellow ex-convicts? (If you think this question is absurd, remember the absurdity of your censorship.)

I wish to reiterate that I'm not at all interested in publicity but only in examples of ridiculous censorship by American newspapers and magazines. I do intend to pursue this unprecedented matter.

ADDITIONAL READING
Ex-con Aman: http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/aman.html
Felon Aman: http://www.sonic.net/maledicta/penpal_pr.html

Awaiting your reply,

Sincerely,

Reinhold Aman, Ph.D.
Editor & Publisher
Ex-convict & Felon

Reply from Jill Williams
and
Aman's Reply to Her

To indicate who wrote what, I used blue text for my words and brown for theirs.

Date: Tue, 30 May 2006
From: Reinhold (Rey) Aman <aman@sonic.net>
To: Jill Williams <JWILLIAMS@journalsentinel.com>
CC: Lori Price <LPRICE@journalsentinel.com>
Steven Smith <ssmith@journalcommunications.com>
Elizabeth Brenner <bbrenner@journalsentinel.com>
Martin Kaiser <mkaiser@journalsentinel.com>
George Stanley <gstanley@journalsentinel.com>
Nancy Mack <namack@uwm.edu>
Subject: Re: JS Censorship of Lori Price's article

Jill Williams wrote:

Dear Dr. Aman:

Thank you for taking the time to contact the Journal Sentinel. I appreciate you sharing your thoughts.

I bet, as they say in Milwaukee, dear Ms. Williams.

It is not unusual for a reporter to interview any number of people for a story and to not use all of them in the final version.

I am familiar with this practice. Space limitation and unimportant drivel by the interviewed are the usual reasons, but not in this case.

Some are edited out by the reporter,

But not in this case. You forced Ms. Price to edit out any reference to "Reinhold Aman," the ex-convict.

others by editors during the story's progression to print. To that end, your comments were not included in the story.

That is not true. One of my significant comments survived your knife, but you forced Ms. Price to delete the source (Reinhold Aman), to wit:

Lori Price wrote: "The exposure comes from a shift in language that can be traced back to the 1960s and 1970s, a time that included various movements toward increased individual freedom and gender equality, language experts said."

This information is from me. Why did you force Ms. Price to delete "Reinhold Aman said" and have her replace it with the generic and false "language experts said."?

More importantly, no journalist who has ever interviewed me has failed to quote me; and no editor has ever forced a writer to delete my name -- except in this case, thanks to your silly and unexplained "concerns."


I'd like to thank you for taking the time to speak with Lori Price. I'm certain that your discussion with her did shed light on the topic.

But most of my light was extinguished by your heavy-handed censorship of that ex-convict Reinhold Aman, and Ms. Price's readers were thus left in the dark about the reasons leading up to today's increased use of vulgar language, which was the topic of her interview and story.

Sincerely,
Jill Williams
Assistant Managing Editor/features and entertainment
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

Dear Ms. Williams, I may be an ex-convict, but I'm not stupid, and my BS-Detector works fine. You're trying to weasel out of an unheard-of and tacky act of censorship. You also refused to answer my major questions:

(1) Why did you ask Ms. Price to delete any reference to my informative comments and me?

(2) What does my short stay at a minimum-security prison camp ending in 1994 have to do with my well-known scholarly expertise in the field Ms. Price was researching?

(3) What "concerns" did you have about publishing my comments and name?

If not honestly answering my questions equals being dishonest, then you are dishonest, Ms. Williams. Of course, it could well be that a higher-up editor also forced you to answer in the dishonest and weaseling way you did, so the reason for your apparent dishonesty may also involve other editors at the MJS.

I am sincerely sorry for having caused problems for Ms. Price -- whom I respect -- for her having given me an honest answer about the reason for not using my comments; and I'm certain that she has been reprimanded for being honest with me.

It is a fact that you (and perhaps another editor) asked Ms. Price to delete her quoting me because I was in Federal prison, which caused some "concerns" for you and perhaps others.

Why don't you and/or other editors involved in this absurd censorship have the honesty and courage to admit this fact?

Are you afraid of being reprimanded by higher-ups at the MJS if you provided honest answers?

As said earlier, I do intend to pursue this unprecedented matter. I won't let you blow me off with your disingenuous reply. Steven J. Smith (Chairman), Douglas G. Kiel (President, Journal Communications), Elizabeth Brenner (President and Publisher), Martin Kaiser (Editor), George Stanley (Managing Editor), the editor at American Journalism Review and other journalists' organizations ought to be interested in the reasons for your absurd and demeaning censorship, dishonesty and cowardice.

Sincerely,

Reinhold Aman, Ph.D.
Ex-convict & Felon

E-Mail from George Stanley
and
Aman's Reply to Him

Date: Wed, 31 May 2006
From: Reinhold (Rey) Aman <aman@sonic.net>
To: George Stanley <GSTANLEY@journalsentinel.com>
CC: Jill Williams <jwilliams@journalsentinel.com>
Lori Price <LPRICE@journalsentinel.com>
Steven Smith <ssmith@journalcommunications.com>
Elizabeth Brenner <bbrenner@journalsentinel.com>
Martin Kaiser <mkaiser@journalsentinel.com>
Nancy Mack <namack@uwm.edu>
Subject: Re: JS Censorship of Lori Price's article

Dear Mr. Stanley:

Thank you very much for providing me with the first good laugh in a week. Your reply is so pathetic that it's hilarious. Details below.


George Stanley wrote:

Mr. Aman:

You don't understand what censorship means.

Dear Mr. Stanley:

Trust me, I do. I have stacks of books on censorship and have documented censorship by newspapers and other media for some 35 years. Your infamous paper has been one of my favorite targets for ridiculing, censorship-wise.


The word doesn't apply to the editors of a publication.

How can you state such utter nonsense? Uptight, narrow-minded editors of publications censor certain words, topics, and more all the time.

Case in point: Jill Williams and perhaps another editor (you?) censored Lori Price's article by forcing her to delete my name and most of my comments.

Let's use some standard definitions of "to censor," a common verb you seem to have trouble with understanding: 1. to expurgate; 2. to remove obscene, objectionable, or erroneous material from prior to publication; 3. to remove or suppress what the censor considers morally or otherwise objectionable.

Since Ms. Williams (and perhaps another JS editor) asked Ms. Price to remove (suppress, delete) my name -- which the editor(s) considered objectionable for some goofy reason -- she (and the other editor) engaged in censorship. Is that so difficult to understand, Mr. Stanley?

Gosh, if you have such difficulty with basic concepts such as "to censor" and "censorship," how in the world did you rise to Managing Editor?

Your response to Jill Williams' polite explanation is infantile and vulgar.

Come on, Mr. Stanley, cut the BS. Her explanation was inane, cowardly and dishonest, and you know it. It's touching to observe your blustering defense of that censoring and disingenuous Ms. Williams, but let me break you the news that The Age of Chivalry has been dead for some 800 years. There are no more damsels in distress.

As to my response being "infantile," you show again a lack of basic knowledge of English; the appropriate term is "sarcastic." And as to "vulgar," this concept ranges from your response ("deficient in taste, delicacy, or refinement") to words that would cause your pure little hypocritical heart to suffer arrhythmia or worse.

It confirms the judgment that your authority to speak as an expert on the coarsening of American speech comes primarily as someone contributing to it, not from any academic degree.

Good Lord, you are a silly old chap. I don't want to waste my time dissecting and ridiculing your nonsensical and illogical mini-outburst, except to state that my academic degrees are irrelevant (it's my 45-odd years of scholarly research) and that my messages to the JS have been free of the really, really coarse words Ms. Price encountered in her research for her article.

Jill Williams speaks for the entire newspaper.

You mean that your entire newspaper is staffed by censoring and disingenuous cowards? I doubt that. If anything, she speaks for those afflicted with the pitiable "JS Mentality" discussed earlier. There have to be clandestinely honest, intelligent members on the JS staff, not just pathetic George-Stanley-clones and surviving Dick-Leonard-clones.

So tell me already, Mr. Managing Editor, why did Jill Williams censor (suppress/delete/remove) my name from Lori Price's article?

And is it not a fact that the only reason why my name was censored (suppressed/deleted/removed) is my status as an ex-convict?

Why don't you have the guts to admit it, Mr. Stanley?
Why are you such a coward?


George Stanley
Managing Editor

Reinhold Aman, Ph.D.
Editor & Ex-con


Update: 14 July 2006

Who Ordered the Censorship?

Since neither Jill Williams nor George Stanley has the guts to admit who requested that Lori Price remove my name and most of my comments from her article, we will never know who the ultimate censor is. It could have been Williams, with the approval of censorship-happy Stanley, or it could have been censorship-happy Stanley, with Williams just following orders like a good MJS trooper. Until one of these two cowards admits the dirty deed, I accuse both of being guilty of assinine [sic] censorship.

What Was the Real Reason For Their Censorship?

  • Jill Williams's lame excuse (see above) is baloney.

  • Her and George Stanley's reported "concern" about my "conviction" doesn't make much sense, because that newspaper doesn't systematically censor the names of others with convictions, as demonstrated in the section "Convicts" below.

  • Could it be that my decades-long publicly ridiculing of The Milwaukee Urinal's infantile censorship and its repressed former editor Dick Leonard has put me on their permanent shitlist? See "Newspaper Euphemisms" below.

Alas, as long as those two cowards refuse to admit the real reason for their censorship and who was responsible for it, we will never know.

C O N V I C T S

If my conviction were the actual reason for censoring me, was my "crime" -- mailing two prank postcards to my thieving ex-wife-from-hell and a two-page letter ridiculing and exposing an utterly stupid, nasty & incompetent family-court judge and her chivalrous black-robed Wisconsin Legal Mafia protectors -- worse than the crimes and unlawful activities of the individuals below?

Senior Editor Paul Sevart, supervisor of MJS's daring reporter Crocker Stephenson, has no "concern" about the convictions of the people Stephenson writes about -- so what was the "concern" felt by those two twits Williams and Stanley about my conviction?

Details of the convictions by the folks featured in Stephenson's MJS columns can be found at the Milwaukee Magazine's Website listed below, but to give you an idea of how my heinous crime stacks up against theirs, here are a few:

  • Battery conviction for spraying mace in a 9-year-old boy's face
  • Considered a suspect by police in a homicide of his baby daughter
  • Possession of marijuana and cocaine
  • Conspiracy to deliver more than 225 grams of marijuana
  • Disorderly conduct for harassing an 18-year-old student and groping her buttocks, plus at least 13 such incident reports
  • In and out of jail for decades
  • Convicted of disorderly conduct for impersonating a police officer
  • Disorderly conduct for throwing a glass bottle at his daughter
  • Disorderly conduct for threatening a man with a 13-inch knife
  • Disorderly conduct for threatening police and resisting arrest
  • Attempted theft for trying to steal sheet metal
  • Convicted for attempted robbery of a woman outside a bank and carrying a concealed .44-caliber Magnum revolver
  • Convicted of theft for stealing $1,549 in property and cash from a truck
  • Convicted of delivery of a quarter-pound of marijuana to an undercover deputy sheriff
  • Convicted of burglary for stealing cash and property....

Sooooo -- such convictions are okay and cause no concern, and the names of my fellow ex-convicts are published without batting an eye, but my "crime" of mailing two postcards and one letter caused those two Milwaukee morons Williams and Stanley "concern" and thus they requested that Ms. Price delete my name from her article?

Someone is nuts -- and it sure ain't me.

Above details from Milwaukee Magazine, 20 February 2006:

"HUGS FOR THUGS: A Journal Sentinel columnist writes sympathetic profiles of lawbreakers without revealing their criminal records."

By Peter Robertson

In his award-winning "Snapshots" column, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel star reporter Crocker Stephenson [né Ronald Scott Skrzynski -- R.A.] writes empathetic profiles of quirky characters and underdogs fighting adversity. [...]

Source:
http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/022006/pressroom.asp

A Seminal Digression: Sticky Buns

Excerpt from "A walk in Vegas leads to Liberace"
Posted: June 5, 2006

by Crocker Stephenson

[I] Stop in the gift shop before taking off. Purchase two items. One is a magnet of Liberace prancing about in his hot pants outfit. The other is a postcard of Liberace cooking on the terrace of his home in the Hollywood Hills. On the back is a recipe for something called "Liberace Sticky Buns."
"You should serve my sticky buns while they're still warm," the card says, which is as good an epitaph as I can think of.

Source:
http://www.jsonline.com/story/index.aspx?id=431940  

The above excerpt shows the MJS's attitude toward those funny homosexuals, in this case the very late ex-Milwaukeean Liberace. I bet that repressed George Stanley tittered about Liberace's "sticky buns" till he wet his pink panties but was too dull to understand that this phrase is a sneaky euphemism for Liberace's "ejaculate-covered buttocks." But what can one expect from that Managing Editor (i.e., Censor-in-Chief) George Stanley, a former reporter for Ducks Unlimited magazine?

NEWSPAPER EUPHEMISMS

From American Journalism Review, January/February 1992:

"Maledicta" Favors The Whole F___ing Truth   
By Chip Rowe
(Chip Rowe, a former AJR associate editor, is an editor at Playboy.)     

Reinhold Aman says editors who censor profanity are repressed people who "project their own form of mental illness" on readers.

A linguist from Santa Rosa, California, Aman has spent 25 years collecting vulgarities that have appeared in the media. Since 1977, he's published his findings in a 10-volume series, "Maledicta" (Latin for "bad words"), with a new volume due this summer. His new quarterly newsletter, "Maledicta Monitor," now has 1,500 subscribers.

Aman is not the type who would choke on his Cheerios if he came across the F-word in the morning news. His publications monitor everything from obscene graffiti to ethnic slurs to tasteless jokes. His motto: "They say it -- we print it." And although he has investigated a hodgepodge of media, he's had it up to his keister with what he considers "prudish" editing at newspapers.

"Editors argue that they run 'family newspapers' even though the few children who read them turn to the sports and comics and TV listings," he says. "If a politician says, 'I don't give a shit,' the kids don't see it anyway."

Aman says the New York Times and former editor Abe "Super Prude" Rosenthal (who once told AJR, "We'll take 'shit' from the president, but nobody else") have been "absolutely the worst" about censoring profanities. The "silly" editors at the Los Angeles Times follow close behind. Last year, for example, Times media critic David Shaw reported that Editor Shelby Coffey "did not deem obscene language essential to the nature of [this] story on [how newspapers handle] obscene language...not even in illustrative examples." Coffey even excised from Shaw's article a profanity the Times had printed in 1974 from the Watergate tapes.

And then there's the Milwaukee Journal, with what Aman calls its "long tradition of prudery." Last year, when New England Patriots owner Victor Kiam allegedly called reporter Lisa Olsen "a classic bitch," the Journal was one of the few publications to substitute dashes for the B-word. In his newsletter, Aman steamed: "The Journal's left-in-the-dark readers will have to read a real newspaper to get the information, or guess whether Kiam called her a whore, broad, hussy or whatever other five-letter word fits." And editors there recently altered a line of dialogue in the cartoon "Bloom County" from "Reagan Sucks" to "Reagan Socks" and in another edition scribbled over the verb.

"One man's good taste is another man's profanity," responds Journal Deputy Managing Editor Howard Fibach. "We don't mind hell or damn, but beyond that... [It isn't language] I'd use around casual acquaintances -- which is what our readers are."

Many publications do share one trait: inconsistency. For instance, a Newsweek survey prompted by the Clarence Thomas hearings found that editors there had "spelled out fuck three times in [the past] 16 years, but in the same span has also used f--k, bleep, F'ing and motherf--."

While anything short of full disclosure incenses Aman, he ranks the various methods used to censor profanities as follows, best to worst:

1. Spell it out. Aman says newspapers have become bolder with words such as fart, piss and ass.

2. Drop vowels (F-ck, sh*t). "If you use f-ck, we all know what it means, so why should spelling it out make anyone more upset?"

3. Drop all letters except the first (F---, s***).

4. Insert [vulgarity deleted] or [blasphemy deleted]. "At least then the reader has some idea of the genre. 'Expletive deleted' means nothing."

5. Falsify the word (change hell to heck, fuck to fudge). "That method annoys the hell out of me."

6. Employ euphemisms, such as [opposite of father-hater] or [vulgar term for excrement].

7. Substitute all letters except the first with an underline (c____), such as Time magazine does. But Aman protests, "There's a big difference between cocksucker and cunt."

8. Insert ellipses or dingbats ($%@#!). In a column about a college student expelled for yelling racial epithets, Ellen Goodman reported he had shouted "... Jews!" "That's blatantly withholding information from the reader," Aman charges. "When someone is kicked out of school for a hate crime, I want to know what he said."

9. Delete the word altogether. To Aman, a cardinal sin.

Copyright © 1992 Chip Rowe / American Journalism Review

Source:
http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=2122




Lori Price interviewed four scholars for her article: Donna Jo Napoli, Timothy Jay, James Hala, and Reinhold Aman.
  • Prof. Donna Jo Napoli, Ph.D., is a world-renowned scholar of Romance Linguistics but has never published anything on slang. We have corresponded about this matter, and she assured me that her alleged expertise on slang is her college's Webmaster's claim, not hers.

  • Prof. James Hala, Ph.D., is an English Language and Literature professor who has no expertise in and publications on slang, cursing or swearing, as far as I know.

  • Timothy Jay, Ph.D., is a professor of Psychology. A disciple of mine from some 30 years ago, he specializes in psychological and social aspects of cursing and swearing in America, but his knowledge is limited to U.S. English.

  • Reinhold Aman, Ph.D., was a professor at "Dungheap U" in Milwaukee (UW-M) and since 1974 has been an independent scholar trained in Philology and Linguistics. He established the transdisciplinary academic field of Maledictology and is the founder, editor and publisher of the acclaimed Maledicta: The International Journal of Verbal Aggression. He has researched "bad words" in some 220 languages and dialects and has inspired stacks of articles, theses, dissertations, books and more. He has also researched every aspect of verbal aggression, from Anthropology to Zoology. With all due modesty, Reinhold Aman sounds like the only real expert in this field and is regarded as such worldwide.

So, guess whose comments and name were censored by the two Milwaukee Einsteins Williams and Stanley? Reinhold Aman's, of course.

Being aware of your intellectual dullness, Mr. Stanley, I wish to emphasize for the last time that I could not care less whether my name appears in your rinky-dink rag. Had you and/or Jill Williams permitted Lori Price to use my name and contributions in her article, I would not have gained anything -- be it financially, emotionally, spiritually, or otherwise. It's the principle involved that annoys me: your absolutely senseless and stupid censorship.

What makes your censorship so incredibly silly is the fact that the journalists and editors of topnotch publications felt no "concern" about my conviction and nonchalantly published my name in full. I am talking about The Wall Street Journal, Forbes magazine, Financial Times, The New York Review of Books, and Times Literary Supplement, to name a few, which on the ladder of prestige rank quite a few rungs higher than your parochial Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and Ducks Unlimited.

Come on, George, get off your sticky buns and disclose who the censor is and the real reason for suppressing my name. American newspapers are teeming with spineless editors like you.

Try to be a man for a change.

Up to Top of Page


Clicky