nononononono he defined bullying as we understood it, and then defined "teasing" in the narrow context of "a mode of play, ... with a sharp edge". Nowhere in th

nononononono he defined bullying as we understood it, and then defined "teasing" in the narrow context of "a mode of play, ... with a sharp edge". Nowhere in the article does he explicate when teasing is done with intention to humiliate or embarrass, or teasing is done to someone whose social standing or physical attributes make it difficult for them to "play back", or when real harm is done despite best intentions. He seem to think that teasing is wholly a subjective game, where it's what you think it means that determines whether it is in seriousness or in jest, whether the joke is on your or with you. In other words he either intentionally ignored the defining line between good and bad teasing to make his "defense of teasing" point, or he actually believes that they are one and the same, that it's all in how you look at it, and how old you are. In the first case he is hiding evidence that counters his thesis intentionally, in the latter, he is disconnected with actual experiences of life.