| Topic: | Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Re:Nice bit of writing | |
| Posted by: | Alan Clark | |
| Date/Time: | 19/06/19 20:01:00 |
| I disagree. There is an alignment of intended meaning - sappy, bleating, etc. But the political application of 'wet' was take take that inference and apply to those in the centre of the party. As in "if you are not with our tough policies then you are wet". That is different in both application and inference. It is to use the pejorative term 'wet' and apply it to those of a political view. If you are not tough enough to support my views then you are wet. Rather than "if you disagree with our hard views then you must have a worry". In Thatcherite times that worry was called a conscience. It is a twisting of the term 'wet'. It aims to state that if you disagree then you are sappy. Consider, with Thatcher then being in her government and openly disagreeing with her was actually brave. Supporters were sappy. And as such is effing awful term. |