Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Johannes Pilch who wrote (325792)	12/4/2002 7:45:56 PM
From: jttmab	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Yes it does. Hell and H*l are two different symbols carrying different logical weights, though perhaps sharing a common root. We all feel the difference when a guy goes "Aw shoot!" as opposed to its harsher relative. Words carry value. I just used the term "harsher relative" to refer to a certain word. What you suggest here is that I might as well say the word outright. That is obviously absurd. Entirely different comparison. "Ah Shoot", actually appears in a dictionary. You can find the words. By a selection of different words, implicitly you've decided that whatever word you were going to use was inappropriate. On the other hand, "words" that use inserted non-alphabetical characters that do not conceal the intended word are neither part of the dictionary, nor does it indicate that you've decided the word is inappropriate. If I were to use, &()(&(£! as a substitute for a word, that's different as well. While it does not appear in a dictionary, it indicates that there is some word or words that I might like to use, but are not appropriate. But you can't tell in any way which word[s] were inappropriate. What you communicate by using the word hl, or words fk you, is that you know that the words are inappropriate but you're going to use them anyway, making some implicit superficial assertion, sic pretend, that inserting makes it a less harsh alternative. It isn't because it communicates exactly the same word. On the phonetic basis. In your example, when I read "ah shoot", I imagine the phoenetic sound that goes with "ah shoot". It's the phonetic sound that allows it to be less harsh. On the other hand, when I write "hl", do you imagine the sounds: h-asterik-asterik-l. I wouldn't expect you would, I would expect you imagine the phonetic sound hell. And of all words to pick to soften, the word "hell". Would you walk into a book store and not say you're looking for Dante's Hell. If you listen to a sermon in church are you offended or do your ears hurt if the pastor/minister/priest says "hell". They don't say, That hot place down under....you know what I'm talking about....and it's not Australia." jttmab