🚀 go-pugleaf

Oh, c'mon Brian. Don't be so pedantic and nitpicky.
Is therte anybody above the age of 10 who wouldn't
be able to understand 

	"F--- off you a--hole"

from the original, unaltered version? There has been absolutely
no change to the meaning, and I see absolutely no reason
why the vulgarity can't be censored if the meaning
is kept. After all, not everybody thinks it's big and clever to 
use rude words just because they cvan. Most mature people grew out
of that habit about the same time they stopped farting in
crowded elevators and giggling about it. This is a very different 
matter from adding libellous text to the end of a quote. 
The two cases aren't remotely comparable and to imply they are 
is just making this whole discussion pointless...





Brian Trosko wrote:
> 
> Tim Patterson <tim@raptor.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:
> 
> : But there's a big difference between blanking unneccessary
> : profanity whilst still preserving the meaning and content
> : of the quote, and posting libellous statements for no reason
> : except to be obtuse and argumentative.
> 
> The difference is one of magnitude, not motivation.  Perhaps you should
> read what Vic wrote again:
> 
> Message-ID: <5evab9$keb@nnrp1.news.primenet.com>
> 
> Vic Moore <zkc16@ttacs.ttu.edu> wrote:
> 
> :: I have every right in the world. I am free to add words, subtract
> :: words, or do anything I feel like doing to any post in any newsgroup
> :: when I am replying to it. You may not like it, but the implications
> :: that I am violating some sacred rule is ludicrous.
> 
> Vic is saying that it's okay to do whatever he wants to quoted text and
> still purport it to be an accurate representation of what the original
> author wrote.  I really don't see any way such a perverse attitude can be
> justified, because he *is* saying he has the right to alter the text in
> such a way as to be libelous.
> 
> See, at the top of this post is a line reading "Tim Patterson
> <tim@raptor.lpl.arizona.edu> wrote:"  If I take the stuff that you wrote,
> and alter it as opposed to prune it, then it's no longer what you wrote.
> So, if I do that, I'm misrepresenting what you wrote.  In other words, I'm
> *lying*.
> 
> It's a strange moral compass that says it's not okay to use profanity
> where the kiddies can see it, but that it is okay to intentionally
> misrepresent what others said.  How can anyone honestly think that a
> cuss-word is a worse sin than a potentially malicious act of dishonesty?
> If Vic really is raising his kids under such a moral structure, he's unfit
> to be a parent.
> 
> Of course, he could just be a hypocrite, which wouldn't be particularly
> surprising.
> 
> Brian "Shitpissfuckcuntcockmotherfuckertits" Trosko

-- 
   Dr.Feelgood's Amazing And Marvellous Poetic Panacea
       Guaranteed To Cure All Ailments Of The Soul
                      NO REFUNDS
          http://condor.lpl.arizona.edu/~tim/