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: jttmab who wrote (325866)	12/4/2002 9:25:59 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Entirely different comparison. "Ah Shoot", actually appears in a dictionary. You can find the words. The comparison is quite apt. "Aw shoot" doesn't appear in all dictionaries. Indeed it doesn't appear in mine, and if it appears in yours it does so only because of common use. The words "aw shoot" are substitutes for a harsher set of words. It has now come into its own. And that is why it is found in your dictionary. It came into its own precisely for the same reason words like H_l , or %^$%^$ are coming into theirs. By a selection of different words, implicitly you've decided that whatever word you were going to use was inappropriate. Indeed, and that is how vast numbers of words come into being. They are deemed inappropriate and so new words are crafted that are better tuned to the circumstances. It is quite valid to say "heck" as opposed to "hell" if the person doing the communicating deems her message will be better received and if in fact her message is better received. 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. It most certainly can indicate I have decided the word is inappropriate. It is completely valid for me to say "he told me to go to h_ll!" as opposed to "he told me to go to hell!" The meaning is certainly different, though closely related. The former conveys the intended hostility while also showing delicate sensibility toward the word "hell." The latter shows the intended hostility without suggesting the sensibility. Those meanings are valid and useful. When the person whom you criticised used the word "h_ll," he/she apparently aimed to showed some sensitivity to the word, perhaps some respect either for the forum or for even the person to whom he/she directed the word. That, my friend, is as valid as can be. 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. This is quite irrelevant. It does not matter whether the hostile word is clearly and overtly suggested or more thouroughly veiled. The fact of relevance here is antipathy and sensibility. We are allowed to communicate degrees of antipathy and sensibility however we wish, and it is quite appropriate and not a bit hypocritical that we do so. 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. It does not communicate exactly the same word, else you would not have issued the criticism. There is obviously some difference here, perhaps albeit a subtle one. But that difference is very important. The person, however much you might disagree with him/her, likely wishes to communicate some subtle sensitivity to the word "hell," for one or more of a variety of reasons. It is most valid for him/her to do so. Many people write "G_d" instead of "God" because to them that shows respect for the word "God." But we know what word is communicated regardless. Yet we sense the difference between the two uses. One is certainly different from the other. And it is valid to use them. No logic or even social convention forbids it. Indeed, social convention may even encourage it. 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. "Aw Shoot!" is only less harsh to you because you have been taught to accept it as less harsh- because indeed it is, just as is "hl" instead of "hell." Someone began the practice of saying "aw shoot!" long ago and no doubt it was a lot harsher than it is currently. I submit to you that should people increasingly use "h**l" instead of hell, the word would be treated similarly and it would eventually enter the dictionary. I think your criticisms are flawed. 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." This is a fallacy of course. It shows the elasticity of the word "hell." In one case the word is something of a vulgarity, and in another the word is used eschatologically to refer to an actual place. We ought not confuse the two terms, though they appear to be the same.