From: David Taylor on
On 2006-08-19, Ivor Jones <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote:
> "Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9823A863BD4FCadrianachapmanfreeis(a)
>> Ivor Jones (ivor(a)despammed.invalid) gurgled happily,
>> sounding much like they were saying :
>> > > You think? Look through my posts and you'll see a
>> > > lack of spelling and punctuation mistakes for a
>> > > start. That's because I went to school and passed O
>> > > level English Language.
>> > Gosh. I'm suitably awed. Doesn't stop me disliking your
>> > unnecesary use of *foul* language.
>> So protect your sensibilities, by filtering it out.
> I shouldn't have to.

If _you_ (the person who doesn't want to see swearing) don't believe you
should filter it out, why should others (who are happy to see swearing)
filter it out from the posts you, and everyone else, sees?

David Taylor
From: Simon Finnigan on
David Taylor wrote:
> On 2006-08-19, Ivor Jones <ivor(a)despammed.invalid> wrote:
>> "Simon Finnigan" <SimonFinnigan(a)> wrote in
>> message news:4km75aFc466oU1(a)
>> Language evolves. I understand that the word was not regarded as
>> offensive in Shakespeare's time, but we're not living then. Maybe
>> "intercourse" will be a swear word 400 years from now, I have no
>> idea. I can only go by what is generally regarded as offensive *now*
>> and I'd be willing to bet more people find gratuitous swearing
>> offensive than don't.
> I really am quite curious to know how many people find certain
> combinations of letters "offensive", regardless of the meaning behind
> them...
> Then again, given the number that believe in a God based on a book
> written two thousand years ago, I suppose I might be quite
> disappointed in humanity if ever I find out.

Alledgedly written 2000 years ago. I was having a slightly heated
discussion with a gentlemen of the Muslim persuassion a while ago. He
stated that my beliefs where incorrect (I`m not religious, I prefer things
that I can see, test and experiment with, like relativity) - his exact words
where "You can prove anything with Math, physics and science. The only
thing you can trust is the koran". To which I replied along the lines of
"For all you know that book was written 50 years ago by someone pissed out
of their skull eating bacon butties as a joke". It did upset him, but it`s
a perfectly valid point. I`m almost 30, so realistically I can only be
certain of things that have happened in the last 26 years or so. Anything
before that I have to take on trust. Anything I didn`t see happen with my
own eyes, I have to take on trust. While i`m not saying that I believe what
I said about the Koran, it would be absolutely impossible for under the age
of 50 to prove without relying on sources of evidence that could be
corrupted, intentionnaly or otherwise.

The same goes for the bible of course, and for any other holy book. You can
say the same thing for scientific books, like the works of Newton for
example. The difference is that we can look at what Newton wrote, and do
the same experiement and get the same result - proving that even if it
wasn`t Newton who wrote the text, the actual message contained in the
writing is still correct.

From: Simon Finnigan on
Mark McNeill wrote:
> Response to Simon Finnigan:
>> Incidentally, i`m still hoping that someone will turn up a study on
>> the impact of a hands free kit on driving ability.
> Google and ye shall find, e.g.:
> "The study found that compared with undistracted drivers:
> Motorists who talked on either handheld or hands-free cell phones
> drove slightly slower, were 9 percent slower to hit the brakes,
> displayed 24 percent more variation in following distance as their
> attention switched between driving and conversing, were 19 percent
> slower to resume normal speed after braking and were more likely to
> crash. Three study participants rear-ended the pace car. All were
> talking on cell phones.

Excellent, thank you very much for that. Pretty much what I was expecting,
and certainly inline with what i`ve seen driving up and down the motorways.

From: Brimstone on
David Taylor wrote:
> On 2006-08-19, Brimstone <brimstone(a)> wrote:
>> Paul {Hamilton Rooney} wrote:
>>> If we all email them today, maybe they'll put it in the next
>>> edition!
>> Since it's an inaccurate usage why bother?
> There is so much wrong with that sentence, I don't entirely know
> where to start.
> The English language is described BY it's usage. The dictionaries are
> merely there to document that usage. That English changes over time
> is rather obvious -- look at Shakespeare's plays.

Quite true but, as I've said elsewhere, the word in question has been in
widespread use for several decades and the OED hasn't seen fit to include it
whereas they have with other more recent words and uses.

From: Rob Morley on
In article <Xns9824657212BCDadrianachapmanfreeis(a)>
Adrian <toomany2cvs(a)> wrote:
> Tony Raven (junk(a) gurgled happily, sounding much like
> they were saying :
> > So you don't believe there is such a thing as an American
> Poor example, seeing as there's a country called America.
> A South American, yes.
There isn't a country called America. There is one called the United
States of America, just as there is a confederation of states called the
European Union that does not include all European states.