Re: have to side with the moderator
Posted by marc / berkeley on April 25, 2006 at 08:21:25:

Exactly!

Censorship of vocabulary isn't censorship of perspective.

Especially when the words in question are considered profanity, the stuff one wouldn't think lends itself to critical impact in one's meaning.

Example: The cow jumped off the moon.
The (blipity) cow jumped off the (blipity) moon.

The meaning is sooo changed! Which version would you rather read?

I do think it is a shame that it has to be used because of abuses by some posters here, but I tend to think the results would be more positive.

This really isn't the EQ swearing board. If this is what it takes to avoid insulting others, directly or accidently, I am all for it.

(my one cent!)


Follow Ups:
     ● Re: have to side with the moderator - Russell  10:11:44 - 4/25/2006  (36607)  (2)
        ● offending Christians - chris in suburbia  08:27:44 - 4/27/2006  (36637)  (1)
           ● Re: offending Christians - Russell  13:05:49 - 4/27/2006  (36643)  (0)
        ● Re: have to side with the moderator - PennyB  10:30:03 - 4/25/2006  (36609)  (2)
           ● Re: have to side with the moderator - Canie  20:51:44 - 4/25/2006  (36619)  (0)
           ● He meant the homonym for dam - John Vidale  10:45:33 - 4/25/2006  (36610)  (1)
              ● Re: He meant the homonym for dam - Jim W.  09:26:45 - 4/27/2006  (36638)  (1)
                 ● Re: He meant the homonym for dam - Joan Chesleigh-Blaine  12:53:57 - 4/27/2006  (36642)  (0)