Re: What the f# -at- $?

Subject: Re: What the f# -at- $?
From: mpriestley -at- VNET -dot- IBM -dot- COM
Date: Tue, 26 Jul 1994 15:46:41 EDT

Matt Hicks wrote:
>shouldn't bother to use it at all. If you think seeing a word in print is
>going to bother someone, why shouldn't you believe that making them think of
>that word is going to bother them just as much.

It's a time-honored convention. Doesn't bother me any. Way I figure it,
it forces the other person to think of the word, which _does_ bother them,
but because of this convention thing they feel they can't complain.

In other words, it's a way of slipping one by the prudes. Dates right back
to some ancient law about obscenity, is my guess, and this is the way
magazine editors got around it.

BTW: While I have no objection to "dam*ed", I prefer something like
"i***ly r**f*k *asm", because prudes get even more annoyed when they can't
figure out what it means.


Michael Priestley
mpriestley -at- vnet -dot- ibm -dot- com
Disclaimer: I don't.

Previous by Author: Re: Is this why paper books will never disappear? (a bit long)
Next by Author: Re: Which form is correct?
Previous by Thread: Re: Finding out if anyone reads...
Next by Thread: Digests/reading instructions

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

Sponsored Ads