pardon this, codger!

[RonButters at AOL.COM]

"Rationalization"? huh? Well, heck, THIS seems like the product of "an exteme
paucity of vocabulary"!

But seriously, isn't it the case that,when people use taboo words in
conversation it is rarely because they do not know the more polite
alternatives (as Dennis Preston so brilliantly pointed out earlier)? Nor is
it necessarily an attempt to offend. In general, if taboo words are NOT used
beligerently, their function is to signal casualness, friendliness, and
intimacy. Variably they also serve as masculinity markers. There are other
uses as well. These uses are important--if they weren't the words would drop
out of the language (at any rate, I can't think of any words that can ONLY be
used to offend and not to create solidarity--even FUCK YOU, FAGGOT! can be
used in a friendly way). But people do not always judge situations the same
way with respect to what is called for (or permitted) in the way of taboo
markers.

So the listeners get pissed.

*****in reply to:
Why not?  What possible rationalization could one possibly make?

----- Original Message -----

From: <RonButters at AOL.COM>

To: <ADS-L at LISTSERV.UGA.EDU>

Sent: Wednesday, October 06, 1999 7:06 PM

Subject: Re: pardon this, codger!



> In a message dated 10/6/1999 3:35:28 PM, scplc at GS.VERIO.NET writes:

>

> << Would you characterize those who are seemingly unable to express

themselves

>

> without obscenities as either deliberately offensive or merely suffering

>

> from an exteme paucity of vocabulary? >>

>

> not necessarily either one