"JPG" wrote in message
...

It's a sign of the times. It's a fair bet that common rooms in
university
science departments are liberally spiced with the F-word these days,
much like
channel 4, reality TV and the school playground. If you ever pass a
group of
young people in the street, you will hear frequent expletives of the
worst kind.

Martin

Martin,

I can't echo your sentiments enough. I have always been a firm believer
that the use of expletives are a cover up for a severe lack of vocabulary.
I can't help thinking it is related to a more lax approach to education.
Try comparing comedies from days gone by, such as "Rising Damp", "The Two
Ronnies" etc. and then to current day "Roy Chubby Brown". I laugh at the
former far, far more than the latter.

Joe

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
For many years, this newsgroup has muddled along quite well without the
use of foul language. In recent months, that seems to have changed. I
know this doesn't seem to be a popular view nowadays, but I (and I
believe others) find its use offensive in the extreme. It should not be
necessary to make a scientific point without swearing.


Martin Rowley



I fully agree too. While like many, I am most certainly not immune to the
occasional utterance when things go wrong in private/closed groups of
friends, the use of 'basic' language in public, not only as others have
said, reflects a lack of vocabulary (and intelligence) but IMNSHO, anyone
who has to resort to such language in a public discussion/argument, has lost
the plot, the argument and their mind.

So much is it so on USENET that this and uk.finance are about the only
groups I visit now outside of closed non USENET groups within specialist
interest areas such as e.g. CPDN. The rest of the many USENET groups I have
visited and used in the past, and no doubt many more, could all be more
suitably described if grouped together under one single heading
"alt.support.basic.anglosaxonlanguage"

--
Pete

Please take my dog out twice to e-mail

---------------------------------------------------------------
The views expressed above are entirely those of the writer and
do not represent the views, policy or understanding of any
other person or official body.
---------------------------------------------------------------

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 07:33:53 GMT, "Martin Rowley"
wrote:

It should not be
necessary to make a scientific point with swearing.

Agreed.

--
Alan White
Twenty-eight miles NW of Glasgow.
Overlooking Loch Goil and Loch Long in Argyll, Scotland.
http://tinyurl.com/4gday

"Joe" wrote in message
...

Well being pedantic, Martin as used a double negative, which obviously
makes a positive. IMHO I think a better sentence would have been: 'A
scientific point can be made without swearing'.


I must admit I read it the way he intended without noticing the mistake.
I had to read it a couple of times to see it

It just shows how you see what you want to see.....

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
For many years, this newsgroup has muddled along quite well without the
use of foul language. In recent months, that seems to have changed. I
know this doesn't seem to be a popular view nowadays, but I (and I
believe others) find its use offensive in the extreme. It should not be
necessary to make a scientific point without swearing.


Who's been swearing? I must admit I hadn't noticed any particular
increase in it lately.

Even during the non-appearance of much anticipated snow events
in the SE and the toys start flying out of the pram there seems to
remarkably little *proper* swearing.

Col
--
Bolton, Lancashire.
160m asl.
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co.uk
http://www.reddwarfer.btinternet.co....rPictures.html

In article ,
Col writes:

"Martin Rowley" wrote in message
...
For many years, this newsgroup has muddled along quite well without the
use of foul language. In recent months, that seems to have changed. I
know this doesn't seem to be a popular view nowadays, but I (and I
believe others) find its use offensive in the extreme. It should not be
necessary to make a scientific point without swearing.


Who's been swearing? I must admit I hadn't noticed any particular
increase in it lately.

Nor have I. This group certainly sees much less of it than some other
groups that I am subscribed too. I've been using newsgroups for about 10
years, and I haven't really noticed much change in the amount of foul
language in the various groups over that time.

Even during the non-appearance of much anticipated snow events
in the SE and the toys start flying out of the pram there seems to
remarkably little *proper* swearing.

Agreed.
--
John Hall "[It was] so steep that at intervals the street broke into steps,
like a person breaking into giggles or hiccups, and then resumed
its sober climb, until it had another fit of steps."
Ursula K Le Guin "The Beginning Place"

Martin Rowley wrote in message ...
For many years, this newsgroup has muddled along quite well without the
use of foul language. In recent months, that seems to have changed. I
know this doesn't seem to be a popular view nowadays, but I (and I
believe others) find its use offensive in the extreme. It should not be
necessary to make a scientific point without swearing.


I'll tell you what some posts make me bite my tongue hard sometimes.

But you're right it shouldn't be necessary to swear really. I usually know I've
won an argument when opponents start swearing or start slagging me off
personally.

Will.
--