From dmeadows@idirect.com Sat Dec 30 12:48:53 2000
Received: from mxu2.u.washington.edu (mxu2.u.washington.edu [140.142.32.9])
	by lists.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.05/8.9.3+UW00.12) with ESMTP id MAA43558
	for <classics@lists.u.washington.edu>; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:48:52 -0800
Received: from deimos.idirect.com (deimos.idirect.com [207.136.80.182])
	by mxu2.u.washington.edu (8.9.3+UW00.02/8.9.3+UW99.09) with ESMTP id MAA09896
	for <classics@u.washington.edu>; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 12:48:51 -0800
Received: from hk9k801.idirect.com (on-ham-a53-03-186.look.ca [216.154.53.58])
	by deimos.idirect.com (8.9.3/8.9.3) with ESMTP id PAA08434
	for <classics@u.washington.edu>; Sat, 30 Dec 2000 15:48:15 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20001230154812.00a42ec0@idirect.com>
X-Sender: dmeadows@idirect.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
Date: Sat, 30 Dec 2000 15:48:14 -0500
To: classics@u.washington.edu
From: David Meadows <dmeadows@idirect.com>
Subject: Re: What About Latin and the Working Class?
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed

If anyone cares, I'm stunningly offended by the term "working class" in 
general ... it's stunningly arrogant to assume that folks who do have money 
acquired it by ways other than "working". It's also rather rude, I suspect, 
to bring it up on a list where the vast majority of folks would not be 
considered to fulfill the 'definition' of "working class" (although they'd 
like to think they are) ...

dm
(don't get me started) 

.