On Sat, Mar 26, 2011 at 11:13 PM, The Bus Depot <vanagon@busdepot.com>wrote:

> This would seem to be a no-brainer to me.  It would seem to me that if
> language is too colorful for network television there's no real need to use
> it here. After all, where is the upside?  How would the list possibly
> benefit from language that may offend certain members, even if only the
> minority? I'm no prude, and will swear like a sailor if I drop a starter on
> my foot.  But among mixed company, I see absolutely no harm in being
> considerate enough to avoid potentially offending people whose standards
> differ from mine.
>
>
Mixed how?  By prudishness?  Religious observance?  By willingness to accept
sex as a normal human activity (that being what network TV seems to
restrict)?  Certainly not by gender, which is the typical meaning of "mixed
company."

I sometimes use language that religious Christians consider to be swearing
(the words for which jeez, jeepers, drat, and various other words are
replacements).   I sometimes use them in emails.  I think the obsession
about use of those words on this list is absurd.  They have a certain useful
shock value in some contexts, and I would prefer to be able to use them if
that's what seems appropriate to me.  On the whole, I think if you want to
control what your children read on the internet, this list REALLY is not
what you need to be worrying about, and controlling language on this list is
not going to do a thing to prevent your kids from porn, neo-Nazis,
prejudice, sacrilege, or any of a lot of other things you may not want them
exposed to.

That being said, I try to remember not to use proscribed words on the list
(usually successfully, not always).  If they really offend anyone on the
list and you think that banning them is important, okay, I will will go
along with it.  Out of respect for your concerns, whoever you are, I can
comply with something that I consider to be foolishness.

Joy