On Mon, 09 Feb 2004 09:47:27 GMT, Guy Alcala
wrote:

Dave Kearton wrote:

Point well made - however, just as some people would prefer not to hear such
words in conversation, possibly the same would not want to see them as
well. Veiling a word behind #$@% is tantamount to beeping out a
word on TV

I'd have to disagree: if there is no doubt what the word is, how are anyone's
presumably tender sensibilities being protected?

and now, putting an electronic patch to prevent the
tender-hearted from accidentally lipreading something offensive.

I guess it's time to stock smelling salts again, to revive all the fragile souls
who will be swooning into a dead faint from the mere knowledge that someone has
used an anglo-saxonism. Where is Queen Victoria when we need her?


I'm continually reminding my students (particularly when they lapse
into vulgarities in classroom discussion) that language is richer than
simply depending upon a half dozen expletives to fit every situation.

I suggest that there is much enjoyment to be gained by insulting one
in such expressive rhetoric that they don't realize until two days
later that they have been trashed.

There is also the loss of ability to really shock when it is required
if the most shocking terms are worn out by daily application.

I proudly point out that the basic Anglo-Saxon reference to copulation
does not appear at all in When Thunder Rolled, although there are two
"****s" and a "bull****". The second book (currently in the hands of
the publisher) contains one "****ing" used as an adjective in a direct
quote from a POW.


Ed Rasimus
Fighter Pilot (USAF-Ret)
"When Thunder Rolled"
Smithsonian Institution Press
ISBN #1-58834-103-8