Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!lll-crg!lll-lcc!ptsfa!cogent!mark From: mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) Newsgroups: news.misc Subject: Re: Abuses of the net Message-ID: <73@cogent.UUCP> Date: Fri, 21-Nov-86 13:07:05 EST Article-I.D.: cogent.73 Posted: Fri Nov 21 13:07:05 1986 Date-Received: Fri, 21-Nov-86 20:39:33 EST References: <225@mind.UUCP> <21023@styx.UUCP> <9516@sun.uucp> Reply-To: mark@cogent.UUCP (Mark Steven Jeghers) Organization: Cogent Software Solutions, Stockton, CA Lines: 59 In article <9516@sun.uucp> falk@sun.uucp (Ed Falk) writes: >> In article <225@mind.UUCP> harnad@mind.UUCP (Stevan Harnad) writes: >> > >> > > you have shit-for-brains... This is all horse manure... >> > > you are blowing your hot air out the wrong orifice... >> > > Paperboy wanted to handle Fecal Heights and surrounding vicinity... >> > > get her ass up here... don't waste your foul breath telling me... >> > > male chauvinist pricks... but THEY sure as hell left THEIR crap all >> > > over the place... go shove where the sun doesn't shine... Utter crap. >> > >I subscribed to sci.lang just to see what the offending article was. >Mr. Harnad has taken a very informative and interesting article and >quoted it grossly out of context. > >I can't believe that in this day and age people are still so uptight about >four-letter words. Perhaps someone should write a filter for rn that >allows people who are easily offended to have all dirty words pre-screened >for them. Well, Ed, the thing is that foul language is still (and always will be) offensive to many people. This is perhaps the reason it is called "foul". Ok, so I'm working in Bert and Ernie mode here - perhaps a little more specific explanation would be in order. Some of the tendancies of "dirty-talk" is that 1) someone or something is equated to something vile and filthy (e.g. shit-for-brains, Fecal Heights), 2) human sexuality is depicted in a degrading way (we don't need any examples of this, I'm sure), or 3) God is dealt with in a mocking fashion (which is not a big deal if you are athiest, agnostic, etc, but it is to others). Granted, these will largely depend on personal views and tastes, but there is a generality to be drawn: the intent is to take something that is revered or valued and degrade it. This is, thus, a sort of a disrespect, both to the thing being degraded (sexuality, diety, whatever) and the person being flamed (in the even that it is in a flame-context). I was always taught that the absence of such vocabulary was an indication of a wiser person. I suppose that is a sweeping generalization, but I am reluctant to dismiss the idea altogether. I don't claim to have a perfectly clean vocabulary myself, but, at the same time, I try not to go off the deep end in the hostile fashion that the original poster seems to have done. I interpret that as sheer hatred, thus I find it offensive. In closing, let me suggest that "in this day and age" we are not really any smarter than those who came before us. We like to *tell* ourselves that we are wiser (or more open, or more fair, etc), but sometimes I must suspect that we smell better, and that's about it. We ought not to discard a point of view or principle *just* because of it's antiquity. -- +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+ | Mark Steven Jeghers - the living incarnation of "Deep-Thought" | | ("You won't like the answer ... you didn't ask it very well.") | | | | {ihnp4,cbosgd,lll-lcc,lll-crg}|{dual,ptsfa}!cogent!mark | | ^^^^^^-------recommended------^^^^^ | | | | Cogent Software Solutions can not be held responsible for anything said | | by the above person since they have no control over him in the first place | +----------------------------------------------------------------------------+