[PLUG-TALK] Re: [PLUG] Vulgarity: Was: Steve Duin's column of 5/21/02

Russell Senior seniorr at aracnet.com
Fri May 31 10:02:52 PDT 2002


>>>>> "Russ" == Russ Johnson <russj at dimstar.net> writes:

[note: I am only cc'ing you so that you notice I am responding in plug-talk]

Russ> Not to mention that I find that the number of cuss words in a
Russ> statement is inversely proportional to the validity of the
Russ> argument.

I didn't hear any substantive argument against the validity of the
last (?) message I used that included the f-word.  It was, if I
remember correctly, the one asking why Ben (?) included the full spam
in his reply.

This is just to challenge your assertion of "inversely proportional".
You might personally value the message in an inversely proportional
way, but I don't think you can extend that "value" to "validity"
(which I think is a more objective standard) without more of an
evidentiary foundation.  I think I've presented a good counter
example.

-- 
Russell Senior         ``The two chiefs turned to each other.        
seniorr at aracnet.com      Bellison uncorked a flood of horrible       
                         profanity, which, translated meant, `This is
                         extremely unusual.' ''                      




More information about the PLUG-talk mailing list