RE: OT: Profanity in the workplace

Subject: RE: OT: Profanity in the workplace
From: "Leonard C. Porrello" <Leonard -dot- Porrello -at- SoleraTec -dot- com>
To: "Dan Goldstein" <DGoldstein -at- riverainmedical -dot- com>, <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com>
Date: Wed, 3 Mar 2010 13:50:16 -0800

Objectively, words are just sounds that have no meaning apart from human
apprehension. They are all "inherently" meaningless. For example, the
word "dog" has meaning only in the mind of a person who speaks English.
"Dog" is meaningless to a wild baboon. Granted this, it makes no sense
to talk about words apart from their social context. At its core,
language is a social phenomenon. Consequently, "inherent," if used at
all, has a special meaning when it comes to language. It doesn't mean,
"existing in someone or something as a permanent and inseparable
element, quality, or attribute." Instead, it means something like
"infixed." Consequently, I would assert that in the mind of someone who
speaks English, "dog" is, in the sense I have defined, inherently
meaningful, and if when I said "dog," someone understood "pork pie," he
would rightly be considered to be either mistaken or insane. Along these
lines, vulgar and profane phrases are considered as such because they
are identified as such by the social group in which they are used. If
"GD" weren't "inherently" offensive in our social group, it wouldn't be
used in an expletive manner. Therefore, within a certain social group
and at a particular time in that social group, some phrases are
inherently offensive.

Leonard

-----Original Message-----
From: techwr-l-bounces+leonard -dot- porrello=soleratec -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
[mailto:techwr-l-bounces+leonard -dot- porrello=soleratec -dot- com -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- c
om] On Behalf Of Dan Goldstein
Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 12:43 PM
To: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
Subject: RE: OT: Profanity in the workplace

No word is inherently offensive. The offense depends not only on the
speaker's intent, but also on the situation and the people within
hearing.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Wade Courtney
> Sent: Wednesday, March 03, 2010 3:14 PM
> To:
> Cc: techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
> Subject: Re: OT: Profanity in the workplace
>
> Is it really the word that's offensive or the intent behind
> it. For Example...
>

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Use Doc-To-Help's XML-based editor, Microsoft Word, or HTML and
produce desktop, Web, or print deliverables. Just write (or import)
and Doc-To-Help does the rest. Free trial: http://www.doctohelp.com

Explore CAREER options and paths related to Technical Writing,
learn to create SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS documents, and
get tips on FUNCTIONAL SPECIFICATION best practices. Free at:
http://www.ModernAnalyst.com

---
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-

To unsubscribe send a blank email to
techwr-l-unsubscribe -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com
or visit http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/options/techwr-l/archive%40web.techwr-l.com


To subscribe, send a blank email to techwr-l-join -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com

Send administrative questions to admin -at- techwr-l -dot- com -dot- Visit
http://www.techwr-l.com/ for more resources and info.

Please move off-topic discussions to the Chat list, at:
http://lists.techwr-l.com/mailman/listinfo/techwr-l-chat


References:
RE: OT: Profanity in the workplace: From: Gene Kim-Eng
Re: OT: Profanity in the workplace: From: Chris Morton
Re: OT: Profanity in the workplace: From: Wade Courtney
RE: OT: Profanity in the workplace: From: Dan Goldstein

Previous by Author: RE: Profanity in the workplace
Next by Author: RE: API doc question
Previous by Thread: RE: OT: Profanity in the workplace
Next by Thread: Re: OT: Profanity in the workplace


What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:


Sponsored Ads