OT -- Re: random cover of a range

[Bill Baxter]

On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 4:14 PM, Nick Sabalausky <a at a.a> wrote:
> "Bill Baxter" <wbaxter at gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:mailman.753.1234854114.22690.digitalmars-d at puremagic.com...
>> On Tue, Feb 17, 2009 at 3:52 PM, John Reimer <terminal.node at gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>> Hello Derek,
>>>
>>>>> It's a very pervasive view that swearing is a non-issue these days,
>>>>> and a person is just being prudish and silly if he disaproves.
>>>>>
>>>> Hmmm ... you got some statistics to back that up? Most people I deal
>>>> with have limits (not all the same), so that seems to indicate to me
>>>> that some swearing behaviour is not acceptable to most people.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No, I don't. It was a general observation from my interactions within
>>> certain groups of people.  So I would do best to withdraw that statement.
>>
>> George Carlin.  Chris Rock.  South Park.  Never would have been
>> accepted in the Leave-it-to-Beaver era.
>>
>
> Oh man, I would *hate* to be restricted to 50's era television shows like
> that. I'd feel like I was living in some crazy puritan-revival sect.

Well, you're a product of your environment, so I guess that's not
really surprising.

> I've felt for a while that the issue of profanity can be summed up as
> "People fall into one of two groups: Those who believe in the old 'sticks
> and stones' adage and those who don't." It takes a weak person to be harmed
> by words.

I don't quite know what to say to that.   So you're saying you
wouldn't mind if someone stood behind you uttering profanities all day
long?  I would find that highly annoying and it would most certainly
contribute to my stress levels.  Even if it weren't profanities it
would be highly annoying.  So to say words can't harm you seems
nonsense to me.  Sure words do not cause physical injury, but are
physical injuries the only ones that matter?

--bb