Klarinet Archive - Posting 001031.txt from 2004/03

From: "Dee D. Flint" <deehays@-----.net>
Subj: Re: [kl] foul language
Date: Wed, 17 Mar 2004 19:02:34 -0500


----- Original Message -----
From: "Sue Raycraft" <raycraft@-----.com>
To: <klarinet@-----.org>
Sent: Wednesday, March 17, 2004 5:31 PM
Subject: [kl] foul language

>
> > I too enjoy his post and his website. Those things do not give license
for
> > foul language nor do they require my approval of what is wrong.
Different
> > opinions do not remove the right to oppose someone's actions.
> >
> > Gary
>
>
> I would like to suggest that perhaps there are times when we
> might benefit from listening to the MEANING behind what a
> person is saying, rather than nit-picking over their choice of
> words.
>
> All this got started by Tony's request that Ormondtoby explain
> something to him so he would better understand it. He wanted
> to understand, and he wasn't sure he did, so he asked for a better
> explanation. He happened to use a word that some people find
> offensive but he did a very good job of getting his point across,
> which was (to me anyway) that he doesn't give a sh*t if there are
> people who object to off-topic posts; there are some off-topic
> posts that are worth discussing.
>
> If you don't want to be part of a discussion, don't. If you don't
> like the list the way it is, then unsubscribe. It's not going to change.
>
> Sue

The use of profanity, foul language etc obscures the meaning as they are
unnecessary words. The listener has to wait, if you will, until the speaker
gets past such words to the heart of the matter. Then of course there is
the problem that if there are too many unnecessary words in the discussion,
foul or not, the listener simply tunes out.

How well do you listen to the person that goes "..uh..um" between phrases or
every other word? You tune out.

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Klarinet is a service of Woodwind.Org, Inc. http://www.woodwind.org