On Mon, 10 Oct 2005 11:37:30 +0000, Shortwave Sportfishing wrote:


Fascinating subject isn't it?

And not an easy one. The courts have been dealing with variations of this
for years.

I think back to when I can first identify thoughts expressed in a fashion
that normally would be considered offensive - boot camp. I had experience
with "blue" language through various coaches and the occasional bout of
faux concern about something or the other, but that was the first time I
had ever run into it as an art form.

Later on, when I went to NCO School, I learned that it is indeed an art
form and has it's place in settings other than public. Believe this or
not, even since that time I have refrained, or tried mightily to, not
swear in public. My wife actually swears more than I do.

Having said that, I do use substitutes, but I honestly try to refrain from
doing that also.

It is a personal choice because it's way too easy to, as jps might put it,
to ****ing this or f'ing that. It lacks a certain panache if you will - a
lack of wit or understanding of basic social rules.

It also loses it's effect. Some people use f* as an common adjective,
becoming more than trite in it's application. But, a well placed F***,
from someone who rarely if ever cusses, will get your attention.


I find it interesting that a person like the one described wearing the
T-shirt is most likely disdainful of a "red-neck" or "southern hick" who
most likely wouldn't be caught dead wearing something like that in public.
:) This same person probably feels that the Confederate Battle Flag is
offensive, yet doesn't feel that her T-shirt is offensive in any way.

It truly is a matter of perspective and POV.

What I find fascinating, is how easily our stands on issues can change
because of POV. For instance, if it was Clinton's face, not Bush's, the
issues would be the same, but would our various positions? It's sometimes
quite telling about the quality of a politician, do they remain consistent
on the issues, regardless of their POV.