Hi Tweets,

>>Leslie Ann Rose writes:
>
>>I'll admit, I'm guilty of colorful metaphores, myself.

Guilty of a colorful metaphor? Hell/heck/darn/shoot/, I revel in 'em!

>However, in this
>>instance I really would have preferred some of the phrasing to be less
>>colorful. The reality is that some people are offending by such
>>language and we should be considerate of all list members.

But what is "such language"? I reproduced a string of "such language" that
fifty years ago at least one of them, the word 'hell', could have earned me
bitter opprobrium for use in public. Now they're just mild euphemisms, and
such a reaction would be risible.

So, how to rank and who's to judge? What are the qualifications for judging?
What mechanisms for banning? What period to set to revisit words for their
acceptability? Penalties?

>>Sort of like
>>not smoking in a public place where the smoke may be harmful/offensive
>>to others.

I'd suggest a false analogy here. The difference is that profanity has no
measurable effect on health: tobacco smoke has. It's not just offensive but
actually dangerous.

>I must have skipped the original message because I don't know what this
>discussion is referring to. I'm not personally offended by most uses of
>"colorful" language,

Interesting: I can't find the original either. Did we just dream it? Anyway,
why just Tweeters? Why *should* our list be a linguistically sanitised zone?
Should we appoint some Language Police (the cadet rank of Thought Police, as
language is the vehicle of thought) or allow them to appoint themselves to
ensure the rest of us of a purity which never existed except in Norman
Rockwell paintings? I've observed and had direct experience that decent
people using nice language can say things of the most appalling cruelty,
while people less refeened than our glorious selves can be incredibly kind
while using street language that I, trapped in my middle-class, middle-aged
white-bread propriety, would think would bring the wrath of Zeus upon them.

>but I do squirm when it's used on Tweeters because I'm
>sure others *are* offended.

Are they actually, though? Whenever and wherever I hear this issue come up,
it's invariably in the context of 'protecting children'. Well, children and
young adults nowadays *use* this kind of language much more openly and
freely and far more honestly than we do, and are far more comfortable with
it, so it's clearly got more to do with what's happening in our adults'
minds than the children's. That may be where the most profitable line of
discussion and insight might go. What is this discussion *actually* about?

And one cannot take responsibility for the feelings of others, though one
can take them into account when making a choice; in that way, empathy makes
a good servant but a bad master. Locking up your eloquence because you think
I might be offended is not only self-limiting but handing me the
responsibility for your decisions. No thanks, I'll pass. Personally, I'm far
more interested in what you have to say than how you say it.

>While I can't claim to never use such language,
>there are places I wouldn't dare use it. For example, I doubt it would be
>appropriate for me to swear at my fourth grade class, even knowing that most
>of them have been exposed to it by one or more of their peers.

And use it more freely than you do. There's that adult 'let's pretend it
doesn't exist' again. Why wouldn't you want to, you know it exists and you
use it, they know it exists and they use it, why not stop pretending with
all its attendant weirdness and hypocrisy? Well, I'm being a bit
deliberately provocative there, I'll admit.

>>Don Baccus writes:
>
>>Hmmm...whatever you do, never take a field trip or class led by yours
>>truly...
>
>Okay, I'm trying to imagine the context Don would be swearing in.... "Wow!
>That was one ****ing beautiful Sage Grouse!" :-)

Wasn't it 'My word, Chauncey! What a magnificent spectacle!" ? Or was it
T.S. Eliot's 'effandineffable'? '-)

Michael Price A brave world, Sir,
Vancouver BC Canada full of religion, knavery, and change;
mprice at mindlink.net we shall shortly see better days.
Aphra Behn (1640-1689)