<H1>All your taste is in your mouth</H1>

 

All your taste is in your mouth.

Insensitive.

Unkind.

Hurtful.

Given the tone in which it was said, certainly the words were not heard as a compliment.

But at the same time, not totally inaccurate, and not necessarily intended to be hurtful.

There is in the statement a bit of truth - the charge at least suggests that the speaker acknowledges, and appreciates, the hearer's culinary expertise but at the same time has a problem with other features of the hearer's taste, be it authors, color, music, associates, whatever.

That, of course, made no difference when the words were said, and makes no differences now.

The words remain insensitive, unkind, and hurtful.

Over the years the speaker of those words created a new mantra, one probably known at the time but certainly not practiced.

"It's what the audience perceives that is important, not [so much] what is said."

Perhaps by trying to be "politically correct" we fail to say what we mean; we "weasel word" what comes out of our mouths.

That doesn't mean a callous remark is acceptable; it simply means we need to find an honest way to state, clearly and unambiguously, what we think.

But not "clearly and unambiguously and hurtfully."

Hind sight is a wonderful thing, but fore sight would have been better.

I'm not sure if the situation is unusual, but both the hearer and the speaker remember, and regret, those words spoken more than 30 years ago.