Re: unusual language

Steve Finley (Finley@TTDCE1.COED.TTU.EDU)
Wed, 9 Oct 1996 08:33:48 +0000

Sorry, some of my hot buttons got hit. At least I could have said
bulls***, or something else like that. Both are mildly offensive,
and ach! I shouldnae doon it.

But, criminy, many people like myself get tired of the, um, BS we
hear from hyperacademic types. (Now, how come BS is OK, when we all
know exactly what it means?)

Anyway, I stand by the basic points, especially that
it's--uh--cowardly to obfuscate while pretending that you're not.
At least, these people should admit that they're having a dense,
lost-in-space discussion with words designed to keep out the
uninitiated. Or, like Beth B. implied, that they're making every
concept as difficult and obscure as they possibly can. I used to
tell students that anybody could make the simple complex; it took a
real thinker and writer to make the complex simple, without making it
simplistic. (It was profound comments like that that got me where I
am today.)


(carolyn dean's message:

">go in an attempt to build an obscuring wall of bullshit.

>it's pointed out to them. That's chickens***, and we all know it.
>s finley
Just a denotation/connotation note here - I was reading the post, trying to
decide if the language was 'gender specific' and whether a woman would have
phrased it the same, pondering double standards, et al, and I wondered why
you are comfortable typing 'bullshit' and not 'chickenshit'? Is one more
offensive or less acceptable?")