Subject:
|
Re: Language slipping?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 22 Dec 1999 20:19:35 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
421 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher Lannan writes:
> Well, it seems that when we are reminded to "keep it clean" that there is a
> group effort at work defining what is "clean" and what isn't. If a word is
> only obscene to one person, and not to others, then one can hardly be
> reprimanded for posting the obscene-to-one-person word. There would simply be
> no way of knowing ahead of time. Now, if I said (insert random word) and you
> replied that you find it to be obscene, I probably would, just to be polite,
> refrain from using that word in your presence in the future.
Good points, and bravo to you for bringing this debate out of the realm of
the pointlessly theorical and putting it back into Lugnet!
> I think for the purposes of LUGNET- it's obscene if Todd says it is.
> Or maybe- don't post anything you wouldn't want your child to repeat in
> school. (Like CRAPP?)
Agreed. Some people might not like this seeming Monarchy of Lugnet, but it
*is* Todd's sandbox (as someone else coined it in another thread), and we all
agreed to his terms and conditions. At the same time, and at the risk of
apple-polishing, I applaud Todd's willingness to hear the will of the "people"
in making decisions of this sort.
Dave!
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Language slipping?
|
| (...) Ok- got me there. (...) Yes! Both, I think. I just chose objectionable because I was trying to make a definition that wasn't circular. (Obsenity is obscene, fearful things make you feel afraid) Perhaps "extremely objectionable" is a better (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
32 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
