Klarinet Archive - Posting 000057.txt from 2002/04

From: Neil Leupold <leupold_1@-----.com>
Subj: Re: [kl] Continue-to-be-irritated
Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:28:57 -0500

To anybody who thinks it's okay to use vulgar language on the Klarinet
list: please don't. I'm not speaking out of a concern for children. I
personally don't like it, and I know that I'm not alone. I don't enjoy
reading the list when that language is used, and am inclined to block
messages from those who think it's okay, which I would rather not do.

Thanks,
Neil

--- Tony Pay <Tony@-----.uk> wrote:
> On Tue, 2 Apr 2002 07:25:17 -0600 , bill.page@-----.com said:
>
> > Tony continued an earlier discussion:
> >
> > > In this context, I have to say that I find it amusing that someone
> > > mentioned a multi-national company, perhaps even suggesting that
> > > their practices (automatic censorship) constitute an enlightened
> > > attitude towards the use of vulgar language. I'm not suggesting
> > > that his particular company has anything wrong with it, but it's an
> > > odd place to look for high morality in these times.
> >
> > Actually, I believe I made no claims of moral anything, nor did I
> > suggest any particular "enlightened" attitude.
>
> I said 'perhaps', and am pleased to be informed that you weren't
> suggesting that.
>
> > Rather, I stated the fact: the company for which I work, like many
> > companies, has filters in place that block access to certain Internet
> > sites, messages with certain words in the headers, and I don't know
> > what all else. It's not a matter of moral superiority; it is a step
> > towards maintaining a more professional atmosphere.
>
> It's just silly interference if you allow it to apply to everything, as
> is demonstrated by reports of similar filters blocking words like
> 'anatomy', for example.
>
> > Discussion of the shock value of some language in artistic settings
> > has no relevance to the earlier simple request that we keep our
> > subject header free from vulgarity.
>
> Yes, it has relevance. It's not *the same*.
>
> > I would suggest that this was a reasonable request.
>
> It was a request *made* reasonably, and I thought replied to reasonably.
> I continue to maintain that it's distinctly counterproductive to give
> children -- they're the issue, right? -- the impression that the use of
> a dozen or so words is 'bad' in any important sense whatever.
> Particularly if that's applied to the word 'bullshit', with its most
> useful relatives 'chickenshit' (mainly N American, OED, thank you all
> very much for that) and 'elephant shit' (which I first encountered in
> the work of Fritz Perls, IIRC).
>
> I wonder if it would be correct English to run those last two words
> together, as is done in 'bullshit' and 'chickenshit'? I can't quote an
> authority, because it hasn't made it to any of my dictionaries yet.
> (The 'ntsh' looks kinda funny if you do, don't you think?-)
>
> Anyway, as I indicated, the problem isn't going to go away, by its very
> nature. And clearly you're one of what I described as 'the first
> camp', the 'continue-to-be-offendeds'.
>
> So it goes.
>
> Tony
> --
> _________ Tony Pay
> |ony:-) 79 Southmoor Rd Tony@-----.uk
> | |ay Oxford OX2 6RE http://classicalplus.gmn.com/artists
> tel/fax 01865 553339
>
> ... This tagline is freeware, no payment should be made for distribution.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>

Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Tax Center - online filing with TurboTax
http://http://taxes.yahoo.com/

---------------------------------------------------------------------