Nonononono, Canadians are *much * nicer. I’m afraid you’re stuck with us hicks. 
You misunderstand me. It’s not that “short” bugs me because it’s use derisively, it’s that it literally means ‘deficient’, and had that meaning long before it was generally used to refer to height-above-ground.
“Short” means “insufficient.” The etymology is Old English, (from “scort”, which means “cut off/maimed.” It’s related to the Old Norse, “skorta,” which means “lacking.”)
The original sense of the word is purely referent to insufficiency, and we continue to use this sense. “We are short of milk,” means “We don’t have enough milk.” “The ball fell short of the target.” “Mudd is a few bricks short of a load.” “He has a short temper.” “BestBuy sent me a short shipment.” “Bush’s policies are short-sighted,” etc.
I know that it is recently used as a value-free synonym of “small.” A short story isn’t smaller than it should be, living a short distance from amenities doesn’t mean you aren’t far enough away from them, etc, but I resent the ambiguity when it’s applied to me.
I’m not “short” of anything. Although I’m probably in a small (heh) minority, I don’t think a 6’7" guy has a general advantage over me.
“Small” carries the same meaning as “short” when applied to people, without implying that they don’t measure up to some arbitrary standard. When it has a negative sense in other uses, it’s incidental. The basic sense of “small” is “little in size (or quantity, etc.)” It isn’t negative from the outset. When it is negative, it’s only comparitively, ie; “It was small of Bill O’Reilly to spit on that welfare mom.” So he’s short of ‘largesse.’ 
Don’t get me wrong, I don’t rag on people for using the word “short,” ordinarily. In fact, I believe this is the first time I’ve ever expressed why I don’t like it. Usually, I just wince a little. It’s just that, given a choice, I prefer “small” over “short,” and this is the first time I’ve ever felt a need to explain why.
I’m not railing against the use of “small” (or any of its synonyms) in negative ways, either. That’s totally naive. It’s human nature to use abstract dichotomies in purely metaphorical ways. Black/White, Small/Big, Sinister/Dextrous, Bent/Straight, etc, these will always be used figuratively without reflection on the people that they may apply to. It may be irksome if you’re a small, bent, left-handed, black socialist, (as some of my best friends are) but there’s no way to get around it.
Well, I picked 5’6" because if you said “He’s a short guy”, that’s about what I’d think you meant - shorter than I am at 5’7", but not extra-short. To tell me that he will need a ramp or something, you could say “He uses a wheelchair/cart”, but to tell me that he’ll need a stool and a chair that adjusts fairly high in order to, say, work at the counter, you’ll have to have a word like “little person” or say “He’s a little less than four feet tall” or whatever. It would be nice to have a word that’s accurate that dosen’t feel demeaning like I think “little person” does.
Likewise, I’d expect a guy you called “tall” to be, I dunno, maybe 6’2". If he in fact was in danger from ceiling fans and couldn’t, say, work in very tight small quarters, you’d have to tell me “He’s a giant” or “He’s seven feet tall, he can’t squeeze in there.”
Well, sometimes that works and sometimes that doesn’t. As several people here have mentioned, they were taught that “midget” was a medically appropriate word to describe certain very short people, and yet today not only do doctors not use it but it’s often regarded as a deadly insult. “Dwarf” is becoming more popular, “little person” is in fairly widespread use (and often abbreviated to “LP,” as opposed to “AP,” or those of average height), and “short-statured” is popular in some parts of the world. At least those are all fairly easily remembered terms. Whereas if I was to use your suggestion and point whiterabbit out on the street to someone by saying, “Look, there’s a woman with spondylometaphseal dysplasia type Kozlowski,” I doubt anyone but an orthopod would have a clue what I was talking about or the fact that it was a reference to her height.
But whatever term you use for an extremely short person, mocking them for it solely based on their being short is just an ugly, nasty, hateful thing to do. Dehumanizing or looking down on any group of people based on a physical characteristic is the basis of racism as I understand it. Just because very short people are still fair game in the eyes of many people doesn’t make it any less wrong.
If it’s not used derisively, why would there be any ambiguity?
It means about a dozen things. You’re conflating unrelated meanings of the word and taking offense at that, even though pretty much nobody means it that way. And what it meant centuries ago is irrelevant.
It does? If a man was five feet tall, but weighed 300 pounds, would you call him small? “Small” can mean height and/or weight/body type. “Short” just means height.
I don’t understand why the multiple definitions of “short” with negative connotations damn the word, while the negative-sounding definitions of “small” are written off as “incidental.” The most common modern usage of the word “short” is to describe height. Its other definitions are only as relevant as the other definitions of “small,” IMHO, many of which can be used to express roughly the same sentiments as the negative definitions of “short.”
It’s that “short” is “short” for “short of stature,” ie; “not tall enough.” It’s the history of the word, which has been about insufficiency, from the start. I don’t mind it at all when it applies. “Because he was short of stature, Mickey Rooney never did well at basketball.” Because language tends to brevity over time, this has been shortened to “Because he was short…&C”
Look at it this way – Compare these two sentences: [ul][li]“My rent payment is small.”[*]“My rent payment is short.”[/ul]I know which one of those phrases I prefer to utter.[/li]
In the above example, “short of funds” is shortened to “short,” and we work out exactly what the speaker is short of by context. “I can’t pay the gas bill, I’m a bit short.” I don’t have enough funds to pay the gas bill.
“Short of stature” is shortened the same way. “I can’t reach the top shelf, I’m a bit short.” No problem, it describes the situation: I don’t have enough stature to reach the top shelf.
Considering this, it’s hard (for me, at least) not to feel that identifying someone as “short,” in reference to no particular need, subtly suggests that they don’t have enough stature in a general sense.
Don’t overestimate my offense, as I’ve said, I’ve never even bitched about this, although it’s bothered me for years. Let’s look at those dozen things “short” means, though. There are three common (derived) adjective senses that aren’t negative, and which are very close in meaning:[ul][li]primarily spatial sense; having little length or lacking in length []primarily spatial sense; having little height or lacking in height[]primarily temporal sense; indicating or being or seeming to be limited in duration [][/ul]These are all derived from the original sense of the word, which persists:[ul][]of an inadequate amount; insufficient[/ul]Now lets look at those other adjective senses:[ul][]rude; curt; abrupt (This is also derivitive, of “short of temper”)[]deficient; defective; imperfect[](of memory) deficient in retentiveness[]lacking foresight[]easily crumbled (Hey, that’s not so bad.)[]not holding securities or commodities that one sells in expectation of a fall in prices[/ul]Moving on to the adverbs:[ul][]of inadequate extent or quantity; not reaching the point demanded, desired or expected[]not up to a standard[]at a disadvantage[/ul]Verbs?[ul][]to give less than what is expected or needed[]create a short-circuit in (ie; the current doesn’t travel as far as it ought to)[/ul]Nouns aren’t too bad:[ul][]short circuit* knee-length trousers* underpants[/ul]You get the general drift, there?[/li]
Historically, “short” has always meant “lacking enough.” With reference to stature, the word has drifted through use into being applied as a simple synonym with “small.” It still (at least for me) carries that connotation. It’s inescapable because practically every other use of the word retains that obvious connection to “lack”, and the etymology is explicit on that point.
I can’t help thinking that labelling small people “short” in a general way contributes to the (very common) perception that smaller people are inherently inferior. I’d probably feel easier about it if small people (small men in particular) weren’t constantly put at an irrational disadvantage where size isn’t a practical issue. I’ve had an employer tell me to my face not to bother applying for a sales position because I was “too short.” Apparently, the prevailing wisdom is that a 5’4" guy doesn’t inspire the right sort of confidence in your product. It didn’t matter that I was stronger than a lot of the guys on the sales staff, and regularly helped them carry the photocopiers they were selling out to their cars. I’m “short.”
I’ve had women tell me “Sorry, you’re too short.” 
Too short for what? I could pick you up and spin you around like a toy. Too short to be seen in public with? What? My current girlfriend has, on several occasions, felt it necessary to gush about how she used to never consider any guy under 6’3" and how they didn’t know what they were doing, and if only she’d known, and blah blah blah. On the one hand, I can kind of understand, because in my experience, the really (conventionally, anyway) spectacularly ‘hot’ girls I’ve gone out with have been uniformly lousy in bed. I think it comes down to a sense of entitlement. “You’re so lucky to have the opportunity to give me an orgasm.” Bleah. I imagine that works the other way, too. On the other hand, though, it drives me nuts that it’s a topic of conversation at all. What the hell does height have to do with sex/relationships? People generally find a way to work it out.
Uhhh… that was probably a bit of a weird tangent. It’s getting late, and my synapses are firing intermittently.
Don’t think that I’m jumping up and down every time I hear the word “short,” it just rankles a bit, and I prefer small. For reasons stated above.
I have probably said enough on this subject now.
Life is short.
(Please excuse that financial adverb mixed in with the adjectives. Mudd sleep now. Rant tomorrow.)
I agree, I am a male 5’4", being called short doesn’t bother me, as much as actually being short does cause you to be pidgeonholed by people.
As to other terms that people find offensive, I think it largely depends on who is making the remarks, I have a number of friends who in a good humoured way refer to me as “the dwarf”, “stumpy” and “shorty”. None of which I find offensive from my friends, but I would if it was said to me by a stranger.
IMHO any form of abuse due to some physical characteristic, weight, height, skin colour etc are all offensive and wrong. But the PC movement actually make things worse by highlighting the differences more with dubious use of language. The sooner PC dies a death and we can discuss all matters honestly and openly without being charged with some form of “ism” the better the world will be.
Stryfe writes:
> The sooner PC dies a death and we can discuss all matters honestly and openly
> without being charged with some form of “ism” the better the world will be.
Yeah, but nothing here was really caused by the politically correct movement. Once again, the term “vertically challenged” is not a politically correct term. It was invented as a joke. It’s been perpetuated by people who want to make fun of the politically correct movement and by others who don’t understand the idea of a joke.
Some of what has happened is due to the euphemism cycle, which existed long, long before the politically correct movement. “Bathroom” is a euphemism for “toilet” which was a euphemism for something else. This has been going on for hundreds and probably for thousands of years. A category is for some reason not considered good, which means the word for that category is looked at as bad in itself, so a new term is invented. Soon the new word is considered bad too, so another new term is invented. This is an endless cycle.
None of the terms mentioned was invented by the politically correct movement. Not “small,” which seems to be Larry Mudd’s personal crusade, but one which he doesn’t even seem to be able to persuade other people in this thread to use. Not even “little people,” which was invented before the politically correct movement and which doesn’t seem to have caught on in the general public in any case.
All of the other terms seem to have been caught in the euphemism cycle. “Short,” “midget,” and “dwarf” didn’t start as insults, but they became ones because someone decided to treat shortness as bad. There’s no use inventing new words, because they will in turn become treated as insults.
My choice is to treat “short” and “tall” as the standard terms for the range of human heights and to use exact heights to be more specific. My choice is to only use medical terms for any medical condition that causes someone to be outside of the range of heights expected by their genetic heritage. I recognize that this is not a totally satisfactory choice. This leaves us without words for persons short because of medical problems and for those who in addition have limb distortion.
Stryfe, my personal (and apparently idiosyncratic) dislike of the general descriptor “short,” (except in appropriately specific uses such as “too short to reach X,” etc) has nothing to do with political correctness. It has more to do with my extreme prescriptivism, which is totally opposite from PC-speak, which usually disrespects the language in the service of a political agenda, in my opinion.
In my view, the general use of the word “short,” (detached from the root concept of “deficiency,”) is a barbarism. Sure, it’s a barbarism that gained general acceptance late in the 19th century, but it still bothers me. Yes, I know that’s an extreme position. My prescriptivism is not something that’s limited to areas where I have an axe to grind, either. For example, I feel similarly annoyed when someone uses the word “pathetic” to describe something that inspires simple contempt (unmingled with pathos) in them.
PC-speak approaches from the opposite direction and makes language the bitch of ideology.
By way of an example, people who insist on “policeperson,” etc, disregard that “man” means, in its pure sense, “human being,” and it’s only relatively recently that it has acquired the sense of “adult male.” “Woman” means “female human being.” It’s a compound, like “fireman,” “postman,” “chairman,” etc. “Woman” doesn’t mean “a male person who is a female person.” That’s clearly stupid. If it bothers people that “man,” unelaborated on, has lately acquired a sense that drifts from its original meaning, then the correct way to fix the perceived problem is to use the existing (but disused) word, “werman,” which means “a male human being,” when you want to refer specifically to the “maleness” of a man. (Or pick another prefix which lends the same meaning.) People might look at you funny initially, but it’s a hell of a lot simpler to return an isolated element of a language to its original form (on which subsequent developments have been built,) than to bend every other part of it further out of shape. I don’t think it’s likely to catch on, but it doesn’t have the insurmountable difficulties that trying to convince non-zealots to accept the pandemic alteration of the language which entirely replacing the original sense of a word with a later sense would require. Naturally, people are resistant to such an approach because it sounds unnatural.
PC-speak is about feel-good euphemism. My mother is disabled. Handicapped. She’s an invalid, if you want to use the bad old word. Crippled, even. These words all apply to her, in her circumstance. She can’t leave her apartment without help, and can’t walk more than a few steps. (Some people may rankle at the word “invalid,” because of the late adjective sense of “not acceptable,” but what it literally (and originally) means is “weak.” Which she is. Fact of life.) “Handicapped” or even “Physically challenged” aren’t PC-speak, in my opinion, because they are properly descriptive in many circumstances in a way that words like “crippled,” “invalid,” or even “disabled” aren’t. Terry Fox? Rick Hansen? Those words don’t describe them at all. The neologisms were necessary. “Differently-abled,” though? That’s a PC euphemism. Everybody has different abilities. “Differently-abled” is a descriptor that doesn’t describe, but obfuscates for cosmetic purposes. PC.
(Before I start…um…I’d rather be called short than small. Don’t know why, but if it’s a choice of those two, it’s probably because small usually gets applied to kids. Adults are short. Kids are small for their age, or something.)
I’ve been thinking about something I want to say here, but I don’t know if I’m a good enough writer, or if I need to think about it for longer.
It’s this. Wendell, you are very short, no doubt. But functionally there’s a real difference between somebody about your height and above and mine. The world is simply not built for adults of my height or below – heck, I’m on the taller end of the way short set. Kids do fine, because they get taller. Me? I still have to deal with bank counters that go over my head. Occasionally store door sensors don’t see me until I wave a hand over my head (usually while swearing at the damn things). Until a few years ago when the requirements were apparently changed, I had problems using a lot of ATMs because they were mounted so high (for the convenience of somebody 5’6" or so, I guess) that I could just reach the card slot, and be virtually unable to see the screen due to the angle of it. I have a huge pile of cushions and stuff I sit on to boost me up to where I can see out of my own car. Bar stools are great once I’m up there, but getting up is a pain. Not that I spend a lot of time in bars, but when I do…aaagh. There’s probably a ton of other stuff I could think of if I sat here long enough. I used to be almost unable to use pay-at-the-pump credit card readers at some stations because the readers were mounted way the fuck too high. That, like the ATM situation, has largely changed, but isn’t universal yet. Thermostats tend to be mounted high – to keep them away from kids, I suppose. Too bad I’m the height of the ones they want to keep them away from!
It’s constant. Virtually everywhere I go I have trouble using or reaching something. It’s to the point where I don’t think about it most of the time. It’s perfectly normal for me. Annoying, yes, but I’m not going to demand the whole world be built down. Though most things could come down a few inches without being difficult for people to reach, really – for example, stores have finally come up with mounts for card readers that are adjustable! I can read them now! No more asking the cashier to run it for me, or worse, having them come over and read it for me.
This is, frankly, overall enough of a hassle without it being, at least in some circles, totally socially acceptable to pick on that funny-looking midget over there. Ooh, look, she’s buying groceries. What a hoot! So what IS so damned funny? I’ve heard fat people say they’re the last ones it’s okay to pick on, and while I feel for them, that’s not right. I’ve heard a few midget jokes on Comedy Central that were mean-spirited enough to count as hate speech if they’d been racially based. (I tend to change the channel when they start in on that instead of sitting there and getting pissed off. So does my boyfriend, now.)
I’m not looking for pity. But it is a genuine slap in the face to be dismissed because I’m a foot shorter than somebody else. And it is also a slap to be told “it’s not the same” when I can guarantee you that it feels just about exactly the same to be harassed because of height as it would because of color. It’s not like I could just grow if I wanted to.
[QUOTE=Larry Mudd]
Look at it this way – Compare these two sentences: [ul][li]“My rent payment is small.”[*]“My rent payment is short.”[/ul]I know which one of those phrases I prefer to utter.[/li][/quote]
Well, it depends what sentences you use the words in:
[ul][li]“My paychecks are too small to cover the rent.”[/li][li]“I paid the rent early, so my landlord bought me a short stack of pancakes.” 
[/ul][/li]
It doesn’t subtly suggest anything when the vast majority of the English-speaking population doesn’t know the etymology of a single word that escapes from their mouths. Nobody overtly applies the negative definitions of “short” to the height-related one, so what basis do they even have for subtle implications?
As noted in my previous post, it’s just not close enough. See the definitions. I can say that someone is short, but not small. Or tall, but with a small frame.
It seems that the comparison to children “small” can imply, noted by whiterabbit, is generally more relevant in modern society than your etymological concerns.
For this and your other unfortunate experiences, you could just replace the word “short” with “small” in every instance and the same thing would happen in your “short”-free world. Sales managers would say, “Customers don’t want to see a small guy selling them copiers. They need to know we’re a big time operation!”
whiterabbit writes:
> I’ve heard fat people say they’re the last ones it’s okay to pick on, and while I
> feel for them, that’s not right.
I agree. What’s more, I think that anyone who says that they’re part of the last group that still can be discriminated against doesn’t know what they’re talking about. We live in a pluralistic society. One aspect of pluralism is that it’s possible to find some people in some subcultures who are willing to insult any given group. Let’s work against discrimination and hatred directed toward fat people. Let’s work against discrimination and hatred directed toward short people. Let’s just not pretend that they or any other group are “the last ones it’s okay to pick on.”
I’ll try not to continue this hijack much further. I really don’t want anyone to get the impression that I’m obsessive about this in day-to-day affairs. I don’t take offense were none is intended, I’m just explaining why I prefer one word over another.
[QUOTE=neutron star]
Well, it depends what sentences you use the words in:
[ul][li]“My paychecks are too small to cover the rent.”[/li][li]“I paid the rent early, so my landlord bought me a short stack of pancakes.” [/ul][/li][/quote]
Those examples don’t really relate in the same way. With “My paychecks are too small,” you are qualifying “small” with “too.” “Small,” without qualification, doesn’t have any attached connotation of deficiency, as “short” does. I’ve acknowledged that I’m aware of the late, value-free sense of “short,” and understand that people most commonly use it as a referent to height. You’re reacting as if I’m saying the word can’t be used that way. I’m talking about my personal preference, based on the negative connotation that the word carries and what it may subtly suggest. Read these definitions carefully. Stop talking about the primary or intended meaning, it’s quite beside the point.
You don’t need to know the etymology (from your own link "Middle English, from Old English sceort; akin to Old High German scurz short, Old Norse skortr lack) to be aware of the sense of “not enough” that the word has in nearly every other use, and only sometimes has when applied to size.
Of course you can say “Bobby is short,” and people will generally understand that there’s no reason to assume you think less of him. The word has come to be used that way. Don’t think that I’m going to be insulted by this use of the word, that would be silly – especially as no-one else seems to give a damn, or even prefer “short” over “small” for their own reasons.
Uh, you’re kidding, right?
Of course you can. You’d be correct, given the definition. Never argued, that. Are you saying that the derived meaning of “short” conveys information that can’t be expressed, otherwise? You’re protesting that “small” doesn’t apply to someone who is not tall, but otherwise not small? Let me introduce you to my friend, “stocky.” “Stocky” has an advantage over “short,” in this instance, in that it conveys both that the person is not tall, and that they are otherwise not small. Even without “stocky,” “small” gets by just fine on his own, if you want.
Anyway…
How do you make this determination? Both whiterabbit and I are talking about personal preferences, and while I respect hers, I don’t see why you consider the connotation that pushes her button more relevant than the one that gets mine. It’s an etymological concern as well, after all-- and limited to one very narrow sense of the word “small.” Google returns more results for “don’t like to be called short” than “don’t like to be called small,” although the amount of returns fall well short of enough to make any statistical inferences from them. It’s worth noting, however, that the returned results for “small man” are overwhelmingly more positive in tone than those for “short man”. I don’t think it’s a coincidence.
That’s as may be. Height bias exists, and no doubt it is due to complex causes. It is my personal belief that the term “short,” reinforces it, however. I don’t have any wild idea that language is the only (or even substantial, much less primary) cause of height bias, but I do think that on some level the label “short” subconsciously influences perception – whether it’s self esteem or the estimation of others.
YMMV, of course.
Anyway, I do apologize for going on and on about this until I froth at the mouth and fall over. It’s quite a hijack, innit?
“You have a small penis” doesn’t have any attached connotations of deficiency?
Okay, how about “My small paychecks can’t cover the rent.”? “You don’t want to go to that restaurant; their portions are small.” “I needed a big drink, but could only afford the small.” “These fools are small-timers.” “The album made a small splash on the charts, but nothing like what the band had hoped for.” “His small-minded ignorance allowed him to mistake the kind officer for a small, petty cop.”
Yes, I know what those words mean. You can infer plenty of non-existent double-meanings from what people say if you try hard enough. I understand that it’s your preference, and that’s fine. It’s your elaborate justification for that preference that I find strange.
I guess I could have phrased that clearer. Yes, there are some who discriminate against short people, but it’s got nothing to do with the word “short” or any of its definitions. There are no stereotypes of, for example, always getting shortchanged by the short guy.
I just think that her connotation is shared by far more people than yours. That’s just my opinion; I could be wrong.
Well, you’re certainly entitled to that belief. But it doesn’t seem that many (any?) people share it.
You are using a lot of contextual examples in which a large size is either assumed from the outset to be a requirement or desire, or you’re using spatial metaphors in a figurative way. Of course some things are prefered in larger quantity or extention, and “small” is negative in that context. Forget figurative uses. Like I said:
All that I’m talking about is the simple adjective form:
“X is short” vs. “X is small.”
The connotation that “short” carries is its persisting original sense of “deficient.”
“I have a small supply of provisions” has a different meaning from “I have a short supply of provisions.”
“I paid for my burger and he gave me small change” has a different meaning from “I paid for my burger and he gave me short change.”
“Today’s delivery is small” has a different meaning from “Today’s delivery is short.”
“Short,” when applied to a person’s height, is derived from “short in stature,” ie; not tall enough. Its general usage has drifted to mean simply “not tall,” but it still carries that connotation.
Just overlook that when it’s used adjectivally to describe anything apart from length, it means simply “inadequate” or “less than required,” right? Like, for example, Guard Units May Be Short in Fire Season. Elsewhere in the news, We intend to recruit a small team of former police officers from outside the province with the relevant levels of experience and expertise to assist us in our work.
Anyway, here I am going on at length about this again. It’s really just because I don’t think you’ve really heard what I’m saying, since you apparently keep responding to things that I haven’t said, or advancing arguments that don’t relate in any way to the (really quite simple, actually) reason that I prefer “small” over “short,” when it comes to describing stature, except in specific instances when the person being described is actually smaller than required.
I don’t give people the stink-eye if they call me short – I fully get the sense that they mean it in. I don’t (believe it or not) bend their ear for hours at a time trying to make them understand precisely why the word sticks in my craw. To be honest, if I ever had raised the subject, I rather imagined the conversation would go like this:
Never would have dreamt that anyone would argue that the word doesn’t actually have that connotation. (You’re sure that you know what ‘connotation’ means, right?)
My friend PocketGoth who is reading over my shoulder (and only has two inches on you) just applauded your post. And she wants me to tell you that Dave Attel is the worst offender she’s heard on Comedy Central.
Thanks! PocketGoth, now there’s a great name! Though I’m not a goth, so it wouldn’t have occurred to me…
Yep, I ended up in an awful position of having to educate my SO on this very quickly (as in about our third date) when we went to a comedy show where suggestions for skits were asked for. I don’t remember the exact suggestion but it was something along the line of “midget wrestlers” – and an awful lot of people laughed. Some sounded kinda disturbed, like “should I be laughing at this”, but not everybody.
Somehow I just couldn’t sit there, so we left, and I had to explain exactly why I was as upset as I was – it wasn’t “ooh, there’s short jokes coming” by any means.
Wendell, I am in complete agreement with you. There isn’t any last group yet, but maybe someday there will be. People like the vast majority of Dopers give me hope about that sort of thing.
I’m not short, but I am fat.
And a granola crunching hippie.
And I study alternative medicine.
And I like God quite a bit.
There is no end to the name-calling and downright rude and offensive statements made about people like me on this board. I suppose I could go find another playground, but then I wouldn’t have some of the fantastic conversations I do have here. So I just close the thread whenever I see it going to a place I don’t want to see.
Nah, short people are by no means the last group it’s acceptable to pick on. There’s martyrs everywhere, even on the Dope.