At 12:36 AM 7/10/98 EDT, Birders2 at aol.com wrote:
>One thing that was not mentioned by Wallis Bolz about the "Word" is its
>POWER!

I sent twitshit here a private, rude message, but of course he's wrong.

What Wallis describes is EXACTLY the power of language. She describes
a multitude of ways in which one word can evoke a wide range of emotions.

>The power to shock people.

She makes it clear she doesn't fucking do this.

> The power to anger people.

I should hope she fucking angers you. Seems like a reasonable thing
to do.

> The power to make people mad.

What's with the redundancy, are you afraid the fucking mail system
can't be relied upon to deliver your message reliably?

> The power to shame people.

Mary should've been ashamed, arguing her virgin birth and no
experience with ...ing ... well fill it in, dude.

I was born because my mother and father had sex, why should the
most common term for that act cause me shame?

Have you ever fucked? Were you ashamed when you did? Are you
ashamed now? Why? Where is the shame? There are circumstances
where it SHOULD evoke shame, but it has nothing to do with the
act, or the word that describes it. If you're Christian, it is
as simple as saying that the act in marriage is without shame,
while without it is with shame. Either way, the same word describes
the act, and where is the shame in the word itself?

> The powers to alienate people.

I doubt we'll miss you if you leave.

> The power to exclude people.

Ditto.

> The power to control people.

CONTROL you? I'm not insisting you say "fuck".

You are trying to control ME. YOU are the one with the fucking
control hair up your ass.

This is a common conservative dodge. To claim that those who express
themselves in ways they find offensive is an attempt to control them.
While asserting that claim in an effort to stop the expression, which
is of course where "control" comes in.

If you don't feel folks should have the power to control others, then
shut thee up because that is EXACTLY what you are trying to do. Control
me. Telling me to stop using a common english word is an effort to
exert control.

(actually, not me, I'm not the transgressor in this case, except for effect
after the "censor us" thread started).

> The power to close peoples minds to your message.

How can you close the minds of the closed-minded?

> The power to opinionate people against you, because
>all they know or care to know about you is that you use "the Word."

This looks like a dictionary description of "close minded" to me. "all
they know or care to know about you is that you use 'the Word'".

Yeah...take that sentence, and substitute "you're black" for "use
'the Word'", or "you're Jewish", or "you're a wetback", or "you're
a gook", or "you're a wop", or "you're a WASP" and you get a pretty
fair idea of why such people should be ignored - or perhaps shot
on sight.


> The power
>to show that you do not care about other peoples sensitivities.

You've just described why people who can't bear to read modern English
are bigots who do not care to understand other peoples (sic) sensitivities.

What's that "let he without sin cast the first stone" line? Wasn't that
some sort of fucking biblical dude who said that? One who believed in
judging people by more than their surface characteristics? Something
that has been forgotten by damned near every institutionalized
religion built around his thought?

>>From my point of view, I am trying to communicate with people and want the
>most number of people to hear, read what I have to say.

You do what you want. Don't fucking tell me to do what you do.

> So to me, it is
>counter productive to use the "Word"

It's counter productive to use the "Word"? Why, has the Bible fallen
into such dispute that you can't use it in defense of your position?

> and similar language when I know that it
>is going to close their minds to my ideas.

Show us an idea, so we can judge. All you're showing so far is a
close-minded attitude.

> Or worse, to not even read it, after I have taken the time and energy
> to post it.

I realize that no one ever reads what I write, because I always fucking
offend. Maybe I prefer to do that.

> Potential readers, not
>reading my message just because they know from past experiences that I am a
>user of language that is going to offend them is not what I want.

Oh, trust me, I'm going to scrutinize EVERY post you make from now on,
not for "the Word", but rather for the rhetorical equivalent of leaving
your fly open.

There is more than one way to offend, as you are so easily proving
tonight.

>Why would I want to write in a manner that causes people to tell their
>friends, spouses or children not to open messages from so and so because he
>uses the "Word."

Why would a husband need to shield his wife from the "Word". I'm still
unclear, is this the "Word" (which in common vernacular means the
Word of God) or "Fuck".

It's and interesting question because, of course, there was a time when
women weren't deemed qualified to read "the Word" (of God) and now we're
hearing that they can't hear the word "fuck". What happens when they
hear it? Do their breasts shrivel, their minds go psycho?

I don't post here hoping every last person on earth reads them. I have
a fairly wide audience as co-moderator of photo.net, after all (where
I doubt I've ever said "fuck", though I think I'll begin to do so just
to chase off the likes of you).

>To show I have the "Power" and I am childish enough to use it
>with disregard to the feelings of others on the list?

Maybe just as an efficient way of chasing off the close-minded.

If I post something with the word "fuck" five times a day, will you
leave?

If so, I'll do so - and of course once you're gone, I'll go back to
my norm (which is, in case you haven't figured out just how fucking
shitheaded you're being, is to rarely use it in print - you've given
me a fucking good reason to fucking continue to do so, though).

> Why do I want to
>antagonize the people with whom I am making the effort to communicate?

Good question! Just *WHY* do you want to antagonize me and others by
painting a self-portrait of a small-minded, conservative, judgemental,
self-righteous shithead who is convinced that he holds The Key To The
True Path Of Glory And All You Have To Do Is Not Say "Fuck"?

Where in the bible does it say "don't say 'fuck'"? There are comments
about blasphemy, but God Damn, that condemnation has nothing to do with
sexual slang.

> It just doe not make sense to me!

I imagine much of life makes no sense to you.

> Further, Ithat the one person on the list, who
>has the knowledge that I want, may not share it with me because of the
opinion
>that they formed of me, because I used the "Word."

On the other hand, I dare say there are many on this list who aren't going
to bother with you because you're a wimpy prude. So you are losing out, too.

Sharp daggers cut on both top and bottom of the shaft, remember that.

> Why, would I want to risk losing out on their knowledge

Do you think I'll ever share anything with you in private, after this
crap? You presume that people who don't say "fuck" have some sort of
monopoly on knowledge. Fuck that.

I may risk losing out on knowledge, but you, by your stubborn insistence
on beating this topic off to death have guaranteed on losing my
knowledge. And I suspect I'm winning in this deal...

>Now since this list is caller Tweeters and not Linguistics,

I'm actually an expert in Formal Linguistics. If you want to talk
LR(k) and LL(k) grammars, have fucking at it.




- Don Baccus, Portland OR <dhogaza at pacifier.com>
Nature photos, on-line guides, and other goodies at
http://donb.photo.net