From: gwr@hedonist-1.lanl.gov (Graham W. Redgrave)
Subject: Re: Git (was re: Et in Arcadia ego)
Organization: Los Alamos National Laboratory
Date: Sat, 12 Dec 1992 00:18:15 GMT

Graeme Griffiths bites back:
|> In <1992Dec9.211811.10675@newshost.lanl.gov> gwr@hedonist-1.lanl.gov 
(Graham W. Redgrave) writes:
|> 
|> [Vagaries about US squeamishness about language deleted]
|> 
|> >Having said that, I was also taking the piss out of the guy I was responding
|> >to in the first place (Graeme Griffiths) who, in a _very_ British way,
|> >was being shy even about `fuck'ing in public.
|> 
|> 	O.K. I'll bite. Not wanting to sound prudish, I don't think any of
|> my friends would see me quite that way, but I personally do not have a
|> problem with the word 'Fuck'. I don't hesitate in using it socially. I'll
|> have to admit that I personally hold my foul tongue on a leash when in
|> business or family situations as I realise that there are still people in
|> those situations who think that swearing is unforgivable.

Yes.  Absolutely.  The only reasons I think swearing is unforgiveable:
	
	- habitual use of four-letter epithets leads quickly to a laziness
	  of usage and a lack of verbal imagination, which, to my mind,
	  is the singularly most wonderful gift we are given after life
	  itself (What if Adam, naming the animals as they proceeded by him, 
	  could only think of names like "tall motherfucker," "slimy bastard," 
	  etc.  Granted, it would make taxonomy somewhat easier, but I don't
	  think the trade off is worth it)

	- unintentionally offending someone who otherwise would not have
	  been offended, simply because one inserts a colorful if useless
	  scatalogical term (or whatever).  <Pant, pant, write much, Graham?>
	  Which is to say, I take the idea of civilization as desirable
	  and possible, but only if people have manners.  Having said that,
	  I think that to define "manners" there must be a shared culture,
	  and on usenet there is clearly not one culture.

And, of course, it _can_ be the funniest, most relieving, most exact
way of speaking possible.

|> 
|> 	It is for this reason that I asterisk out the odd letter in order to
|> introduce a veil of cordiality. I look forward to the day when words
|> previously used to swear become a natural emroidery of the language, until
|> then I will still be a hipocrite by advocating one thing yet giving in to
|> other peoples reservations.

A more conservative view than mine, but you've probably pissed off (to Amer-
icanize) many fewer people than I!

|> 	Maybe it's yet another US/UK difference that we seem to have the
|> style and grace to not want to offend people we have never met, maybe not.
|> Thank you for referring to my last post as "_very_ British". In a country
|> that is rapidly becoming just another state in the union I do try and do
|> my bit to keep the "Green and Pleasant Land" alive.
|> 

Perhaps for those of Transplantics the distinction is clearer because we're
in situations regularly that cause us to note the many subtle differences
that remain.

ObAnglo-AmericanBook (I think that's all the groups):  _Lord of the Rings_,
where the only people to swear are orcs and Saruman "Sharkey" ...

Yours in a cup of tea,

-- 
Graham Redgrave    |    --  I don't speak for the government, 
gwr@life.lanl.gov  |        but I wish the government would speak for me ...  --
Newsgroups: rec.arts.books