On Sat, Jan 03, 2004 at 02:53:16PM -0500, Paul Morgan wrote: > On Sat, 03 Jan 2004 13:09:42 -0600, Kent West wrote: > > > Several words have been used in this thread (it happens in other threads > > also) that have traditionally been considered "foul language", at least > > in my Texan culture, although without a standard definition of "foul > > language" it's hard to claim with any absolute certainty that "this" > > word is foul and "that" word is not. Still, my momma would've whooped me > > good for using some of that language, and the FCC would have come down > > hard on any broadcaster using such language 10 or 15 years ago, although > > lately it seems to let almost anything on the airwaves. My general > > thought is that if most people would not say it in church or in front of > > a pastor/preacher/priest/rabbi/mom, it's foul language. > > That's a pretty good definition. >
Except for the case of those words that many (would have,have) said to those (Boston,other areas) priests. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
