Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/12/84; site nbs-amrf.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxn!ihnp4!qantel!lll-crg!gymble!umcp-cs!nbs-amrf!hopp
From: hopp@nbs-amrf.UUCP (Ted Hopp)
Newsgroups: net.followup
Subject: Re: About that house in the Netherlands
Message-ID: <76@nbs-amrf.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 24-Nov-85 14:26:31 EST
Article-I.D.: nbs-amrf.76
Posted: Sun Nov 24 14:26:31 1985
Date-Received: Thu, 28-Nov-85 03:54:32 EST
References: <521@klipper.UUCP>
Organization: National Bureau of Standards
Lines: 31

> One question: The person who flamed me called my article "crap". This seems
> to be the standard term for articles one doesn't like. 
> 	a) What does the word "crap" mean?
> 	b) Why is this the only word used in this context? Aren't there other
> 		words?
> -- 
> 							  Biep.
> 	{seismo|decvax|philabs|garfield|okstate}!mcvax!vu44!biep

a) The word "crap" literally means "trash".  It has the additional connotation
   of excrement or something equally unappealing.

b) There are many other words.  Often, however, people who have little
   patience for another's articles have equally little patience to learn how
   to use English effectively.  "Crap" was usually the first synonym one
   learned for "shit" that could be used in mixed company.  (At least in the
   50's and early 60's, before acid rock :-).)  Some people feel "crap"
   remains the quintessential epithet (of those acceptable for transoceanic
   broadcast).

   Of course, such generally applicable, unfocused complaints seldom com-
   municate the true nature of the objection.  One taking your original
   article at face value might have called it "inappropriate for posting
   to North America," or "a thoughtless abuse of usenet."  One aware that
   your article was intended as, among other things, a mild form of revenge
   might have labeled it "counterproductive," or "petty."  Personally,
   I never would have given it a "shit."

-- 

Ted Hopp	{seismo,umcp-cs}!nbs-amrf!hopp