posted
Well, I don't think Papa Janitor has really done much more than say that we should try not to use it too often.
I think that's a little silly. But there are a lot of things that I think are silly that most people take very seriously.
I don't think it's too much to ask. Granted, I think people who get offended by (excuse me) "Oh my god!" will be a lot happier, and experience a lot of more, within a discussion, if they try to let that phrase brush over them.
Posts: 367 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
What about hell and damnation? That's one of my favourite swears. I got it from Hunch Back of Notre Dame.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
EM, You've been trying to tone it down and take other people's perspectives into account, and, from what I've seen, you've done a pretty good job of that. I don't think you lived up to that in this thread. Just my opinion though.
---
You can put me on the list of people who think that quid was perfectly all right in expressing this concern the way she did. (Occ, as he almost always is, is another matter.)
I already edit out the use of god in a non-religious centric way in my posts. I do find the perception of it as terribly upsetting a little silly, but I'm aware that this perception exists and I'm willingto deal with the slight cost to myself involved in changing it to something else out of respect for people's feelings. That's my personal choice.
---
I am also on the side of the people who are uncomfortable with the official turn this thread has taken. I don't see any difference between defining any irreverent use of the word God as profanity and people actually spelling out God instead of G-d or something similar as profanity, except, you know, the Jews' religious views don't count as much as certain Christians.
Hatrack is already pretty whitewashed and (in my opion) overly concerned with whatever anyone says they take offense to. I don't know that adding enforcement of certain religions' standards is a particularly good idea. But it's not my board, to run or to moderate, so all I can do is offer my opinion.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would like to hear from our Hatrack Jews. Do they find it offensive when someone spells out deity?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Bear in mind that what Pop actually said was quite open-ended and vulnerable to massive interpretation.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, but he did put his moderator hat to say that these uses of God were considered profanity. I don't think that he wanted to go much further than making a suggestion, but technically he did. The implication is that using God in this way is in violation of the user's agreement.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote: Profanity is not appropriate at Hatrack -- most would agree that's fairly clear -- and just because it happens sometimes doesn't mean it's ok. Using the name of deity in the manner described in the first post of this thread does indeed fall into the category of profanity. I would appreciate it if people here would refrain from using it in such a context.
Italicization mine.
This is the way it was described.
quote:I can't stand seeing my deity's name (title - whatever - I'm not getting caught up in semantics, here) used with the disrespect that I've seen here lately. Granted, it hasn't been every thread, or even many threads, only some threads and only some posts. But I really don't want to see it at all.
[/i]So I'm asking - begging, actually - to please leave deity out as a form of emphasis or profanity or disrespect.[/i]
Profanity and disrespect are entirely subjective. Is Pop requesting we not use the name of the deity in a way that QS views as disrespectful or profane? Or in a manner that is intended to be disrespectful or profane? There's a world of diffrence, after all, between King of Men and more 'casual' use of the word.
My problem is that I'm certain that many more common uses of the word are in fact offensive to some people on this board, or at the very least, disrespectful. G-d has been one such example. But apparently that was not offensive enough to warrant moderator mention, up until now.
I use that word too often just from force of habit, something I'm curbing more and more as time passes. Before QS called me on that, in fact, but since then as well.
But what unnerves me isn't that the request by a moderator is being made so much as that it's being made after a long, long time of uncalled-on behavior on the forum, but now one poster's plea and offended sensibility has led to such a request.
I expect it's possible other people could make arguments that other behavior commonly engaged-in is offensive or profane. I could make an argument that many things are profane or insulting, based on various religious reasons. G-d was mentioned, and that is a valid point. Among other people, Jews of some 'denominations' (I put that in quotes because I'm not sure if denomination is a Christian-specific word or not) might be offended and consider it profane to spell out the entire word, even in a friendly, otherwise respectful discussion of religion.
A Muslim might be offended if Mohammed is mentioned without saying Peace be unto Him. The list goes on and on.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Papa Janitor would love not to have gotten involved, for Papa Janitor believes that the request should have been enough. However, Papa Janitor got several requests, some informal and some more formal, to identify what the official stance is.
Whether one knew previously that it was considered profane or not, or whether it was previously "enforced" or not, does not matter. If offense is not your intent, then realize that the action in question is offensive to some, and try to find a different way to express yourself. If offense is your intent, then just knock it off. If this is unclear or if you have a problem with it, please feel free to contact me. Just realize that I won't be able to respond to all 500 e-mails immediately.
posted
So the moderator stance is that saying the word God, even as emphasis, is considered profane and a violation of the ToS?
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
The truth is, this thread deals directly with the policies involved with the board. What's wrong with the authority stepping in and clarifying? I thought PJ's ( ) comments were on par.
Pops is my newest hero.
Posts: 1660 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Pops, I have faith that you're definitely trying to do the right thing here and I appreciate that it can be a difficult job. However, I would prefer to have the clarification public, if that's okay. That way the community can be clear about the standards that are being set.
I'm unsure on what the offense is here. Is it that the use of the word God in this manner is by definition profane or is it that people are offended by people using it this way?
If the first, what makes this different from the things that other religions or belief systems consider profane?
If it's the second, do you really want to set the precedent that people claiming offense is a valid reason for considering that something is not acceptable here?
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that Pop is right to leave this up to common sense for most of us, and to clarify privately for those of us who are confused. The more detailed he makes the official public rules, the more uncomfortable this place could become.
Unless that's what you WANT (for him to spell out a lot of detailed rules for you to argue and clarify into absurdity, and then complain that HE's being too strict) ... I think he's handling this perfectly.
Posts: 1539 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:When one calls themself a Christian, or a child of God, they are taking upon themselves God's name as their own. If then you act in a way that disrespects that name, or would cause disrespect to come upon that name, you have taken the name in vain.
If you say, "I am a Christian," and then live a life, or commit actions to others or in the view of others that are decidedly un-Christlike, you have taken the name in vain.
I agree with Taalcon's interpretation. I also think unrighteous dominion may come into it somewhere: using your position of religious authority to do un-Godly things.
Taalcon and I are (I think) both LDS. I'm not really upset by people using the name of deity as an intensifier, because that's about the tiniest possible infraction on the second commandment (the things I mentioned above are so much worse). However, I don't see any point in using such expressions while conversing with someone whom I know it will bother.
Posts: 1512 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that those who do evil in the name of God are the ones taking God's name in vain. Additionally, I don't reallly consider "God" to be the actual name of the being it refers to. It's a generic English term, and it can refer to many deities. Therefore, I'm not personally offended by swearing, including the use of the word "God," but I think it's good not to do it unecessarily. Swear words lose their punch when used as filler. I think they ought to be reserved for situations where emphasis and strong emotion are needed.
I think I'm going to take the name of the current U.S. President (whoever he or she is) in vain. Let's see, we'll need another verb since damning things is not listed in the Constitution as a power granted to the President. Ah, yes, I have it. Bush veto you all!
Posts: 3546 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Late to the party, but wants to weigh in with views...
I hate hearing the Lord's name taken in vain. I do swear occasionally, always to mark moments of extreme provocation or (more often) hurt. However, I don't use the f-word, as its too obscene even for extreme provocation, and actually don't use most of the swear words.
But I'd never take the Lord's name in vain, or whatever phrase you want to use to describe the practice under discussion. It wouldn't even occur to me to. Swearing in general is something a lady doesn't do, which is why I sometimes fall into doing it when in circumstances a lady shouldn't be required to deal with, but to me, there's no excuse for profaning the name of God.
It's like swearing is between me and society, and to be good, I should treat society in general as the Lord would want me to. I don't always do it well, and when society is horrible, I feel even less inclined.
However, taking the Lord's name in vain is between me and the Lord, and I think doing it would be horribly, horribly personally offensive to him, since it would mean a rejection of him. Part of the swearing thing is that I never, ever swear at people that I still want to be close to - it's a signal that I'm about to break off because the relationship between me and them has too much unhappiness for me to continue it. For me to swear at/to/about the Lord, it would mean that I'm about to sever that particular relationship as well. As frustrated as I've gotten with my life, I've even wanted to do that.
I realize that it's not the same way to everyone who says it, but hearing other people do it does bother me. I have to admit that it is so ubiquitous that the f-word stands out to me and bothers me more.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I continue to be dismayed by the attitude among the majority of the people on this site that "taking the Lord's name in vain" means just using the word "God" in a frivolous exclamation.
That's contrary to pretty much everything I've learned in years of theology study, both formal and informal. And so far only Anna Jo and Belle have indicated that they've got a different take on the term.
Is this just a Mormon cultural thing, or do most Christians really think that taking the Lord's name in vain is a commandment about profanity?Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
What Taalcon said sounded very familiar. I've been trying of remember the exact wording of what I learned in theology and from talks with some of the monks and nuns I know. I'm trying to do some research and find any of my notes, but I think they're all at my father's house.
But really. Unless it's with total disrepect and TRYING to piss someone off by willfully using the name of a deity in which that person would be offended, I don't think use of "god" what-have-you is taking god's name in vain. I think part of it, as a person with some sort of belief in god, utterances of shock and disbelief at something a friend said can also be some odd expression of prayer.
Work with me here.
I'm not making up excuses or anything. But if something truly shocking happens, and you say out loud, "JESUS CHRIST!" it could be addressing Christ and thinking on some level "Do you believe this EITHER?! Holy crap!" or somesuch.
Anyway. Snagged the definition of vain from dictionary.com (left out the idiom part because it obviously flows from the definition):
quote: 1. Not yielding the desired outcome; fruitless: a vain attempt. 2. Lacking substance or worth: vain talk. 3. Excessively proud of one's appearance or accomplishments; conceited. 4. Archaic. Foolish.
All four meanings can be encompassed in what Taal and Tom have said, particularly Taal's explanation.
The taking a name is disrespect is under the idiom section. Why?
Using the god's name in vain, in the form that most people find offensive, can be considered "foolish" by them, not taking the deity's name seriously enough.
But with disrespect, serious disrespect for both person AND deity, I think there's got to be more gravity than just a verbal use of an English word for a god's name translated from an early language.
I think Taal's example is much more serious. Someone taking the name of Christian, Jewish, whatever, and then acting not according to the precepts that they claim as their own by using those names.
Perhaps it's a matter of perspective and a knowledge of self and what your true intent is.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Is this just a Mormon cultural thing, or do most Christians really think that taking the Lord's name in vain is a commandment about profanity?
--Tom
My understanding was that it had to do with breaking oaths or contracts taken under the name of the Lord.
Edit: mack exponded nicely. I'd consider the contract of a believer and that believer's deity to be one that could be broken as such (as Belle and Taalcon have said): i.e., to lay claim to the weight of Christianity without taking it seriously enough to make a good faith effort in abiding by its principles.
Edited again to add for clarity:
quote:I think the negative aspect of the commandment is not just talking against frivolous use of the word "God" but against ascribing the name of God to beliefs and works that have nothing to do with the teaching of God. It's a warning against heretical teachings and spreading of false doctrine. Remember it's preceded by commandments that specifically warn against idolatry and worshipping false gods.
That doesn't mean that I think I have free license to swear with the name of God. It just means that I think the commandment goes much, much deeper than what it appears to be on the surface.
-Belle
quote:When one calls themself a Christian, or a child of God, they are taking upon themselves God's name as their own. If then you act in a way that disprespects that name, or would cause disrespect to come upon that name, you have taken the name in vain.
If you say, "I am a Christian," and then live a life, or commit actions to others or in the view of others that are decidedly un-Christlike, you have taken the name in vain.
posted
If we're going to refrain from offending some people with the word, I vote that we go all the way and automatically have the forum convert to g*d so as not to offend our Jewish population, for whom even having the word spelled out is profane.
posted
Specific to the LDS faith, the concept of taking the Lord's name in vain covers vulgar and profane speech, including using the Lord's name as profanity (and profanity in general). That's about it. As for other faiths, I don't know.
I seriously doubt most people cry out the Lord's name in anger expecting a resounding "What?" from heaven, so when it happens I imagine it's probably profane in nature. So when used in a vulgar, disrespectful, or flippant manner, it is unbecoming someone who holds to those particular ideals.
The idea that someone uses the word "God" such as "Thank God" is, I suppose, up to the person. Better writers than myself have already expressed the idea that if it bothers someone else on this board, it's a kind deed to respect that––especially if we don't agree with it ourselves. It just seems a nice way to play.
quote:if it bothers someone else on this board, it's a kind deed to respect that––especially if we don't agree with it ourselves. It just seems a nice way to play.
That's easy to say when you're in one of the more sensitive groups on the board and don't offend anyone as a lifestyle. Then again, two posts above I mentioned that seeing g-d spelled out is offensive to Jews, yet you did it twice in your posts. See how different people are? It's hard to think about what offends people when you post, since many of us post just as we speak in real life. It's hard enough for me to censor myself enough just to not get banned again.
Posts: 5264 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't know if Frisco is serious or not, but I don't see anything wrong with that suggestion.
I think as a kid growing up Mormon that commandment is taught as "don't swear" but I certainly understand the concept of not taking the name of the Lord in vain in our manner of living. The trouble with that is that the different flavors of Christianity seem most prone to accusing each other of doing so. In particular, some Lutherans I have known feel the Mormon emphasis on "works" (meaning ordinances) makes their taking the Lord's name on them vain. And in return, a Mormon may feel that the person who professes to be saved but keeps sinning has a similar danger. So for this reason, it seems less rancorous to me at least to avoid obsessing on whose religious observances could be interpretted as taking the Lord's name in vain.
And in reality, I don't think someone who professes to be saved and keeps sinning is such a problem. The practice of saving up sins and then repenting all at once is cautioned against enough in Mormon literature that it must be a problem for some.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Constantine did a pretty good job of it. Augustine had some REALLY good sins in his sinbook. Man. What a life.
Posts: 14745 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote: And so far only Anna Jo and Belle have indicated that they've got a different take on the term.
I believe you were confusing me with Mack since this is my first post to this thread. For what it's worth though I do agree with, you, mack and Belle on this as far as "different take".
I know a devout atheist who consistently says "For f**k's sake" rather than using the word "God" because the word god is meaningless to him, so why should he bother using it, in any context?
Theologically to my understanding, the terms "swearing" and "taking the Lord thy God's name in vain" in the original context, had everything to do with oathbreaking on contractual deals, and less to do with frivolous speech. However, it is clear that the Name of God, was treated with utmost respect, and I believe that you can find prohibitions on using it as frivolous speech much more strongly in other places.
Personally, I find bodily functions much less offensive as swear words, than those with heavier theological implications. When I reasoned it out for myself I chose to use biological words over theological words. (I've had a long discussion with Katie about this actually, and she's still my friend, despite my speech patterns.)
However, I think a lot of it is regional too. The F word is far more offensive in the Midwest than it is on the West Coast. And as a result the theological words have crept in to my own speech, since they are more acceptable, in my current environment.
It's a matter of conveying the emotion in a manner in which your audience will be most receptive to it. If they are going to be more offended by f--k then damn, then use the "lesser" unless offense is intended. If no one's around, and I spill sulfuric acid then I'll swear in the way I most prefer. If someone is, I'll unconsiously alter my speech pattern as appropriate.
quote:Originally posted by beverly: I would like to hear from our Hatrack Jews. Do they find it offensive when someone spells out deity?
quote:Originally posted by Frisco: If we're going to refrain from offending some people with the word, I vote that we go all the way and automatically have the forum convert to g*d so as not to offend our Jewish population, for whom even having the word spelled out is profane.
Everyone's happy.
Point number one: There is actually a fair bit of debate among Orthodox Jews as to whether the word "God" (and the equivalent in any non-Hebrew language) actually constitutes a Name of God. I weigh in on the "no" side -- as I think should be obvious from this post and others. (It should also be clear that Tante Shvester weighs in on the other side. Or at least, so I assume from her posts. She should feel free to correct me if I have made an incorrect assumption.)
Point number two: Regardless, it is NOT a question of "profanity." Taking God's name in vain refers (at least in my understanding of Jewish tradition) to swearing falsely about a past event. Traditional Jews are very careful about this, and will generally refuse to swear at all -- even in court. We prefer to say "I affirm."
What it is (whether only with His Hebrew names or other languages as well) a question of, is respect for the sanctity of His name. We believe no name of God should be erased, burned, or otherwise treated with disrespect. Therefore, we take care to write it only when necessary, and dispose of any documents containing His name by burial. (Such docents are referred to as shaimos -- literally, "names.")
(There is an entire separate discussion regarding whether electronic forms of words, which are not actually written on paper (parchment, etc.), are a problem at all.)
I am not especially bothered, in the way quid (and others) is, by casual usage of the word "god." I am aware that others (including my mother, who gets mad at me when I do it accidentally (it is something I try to avoid)) are offended by it, and would therefore not do so on almost all of the boards I frequent. Including this one.
However, I have been known to use the acronym OMG, with the intent that anyone who would object to the final word referring to a deity might read it as "oh my goodness." I trust that is ok?
Oh, I do have one objection. Why are these sorts of discussions always on Saturdays? You think I have nothing better to do after Shabbos but read multi-page threads and compose long replies to them? Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sadly, there already has been an official ruling on the subject. The thread that was posted after the infamous Gay Marriage essay by OSC was called "Good GOD OSC" but was edited by kacard to become "Good . . . OSC"
quote:Originally posted by A Rat Named Dog I'm sorry, it's just that the title of the main gay marriage thread drives me nuts. I don't know if Lalo meant it specifically to be hurtful to Mormons like myself and Card, who see the use of God's name as an epithet as one of the ultimate forms of blasphemy, but it works that way, and I wouldn't put it past him [Smile] When he uses it here and there in a post, I can read once and ignore. But reading it every single time the list of threads comes up is really freaking annoying. I'm wondering if he'd be willing to change it?
quote:Originally posted by kacard: Well, Dog knows me pretty well. And probably knows how tempted I was to delete the entire thread in the first place. (Why I continue to be patient with such people sitting in my own virtual living room I don't know.) But I try very hard to be hands off and let hatrack govern itself where possible. But, the name of the thread is really getting to me too. So, Lalo -- I haven't given you warnings on other things I would like to -- but on this one -- change the title today or I will.
quote:Originally posted by beverly: For others (Exploding Monkey) maybe it is just too much to ask. But I certainly do appreciate the effort of those who try.
Yeah, I'm just a cursing wreck on these forums aren't I?
What a bunch of babies. Boo hoo hoo, I don't want to hear this or that. Why don't the whiners in here donate their time to complain about topics with more substance; like real forms of verbal abuse? How about sexist or racist remarks for example? Being a white male, neither has too much personal impact on me as neither gets directed at me very often, but they still offend me anyway. How about we focus on real issues like that?
I said before I have no problem at all restricting myself from unnecessary cursing that is both rude and a violation of forum policy, and I'll continue to do so. In fact, I don't think I've ever used the word God in these forums for any reason before now, and possibly never will again. However, I'm not going to bow down to a minority (or even majority) that says I can't use a certain word in certain context because they are over sensitive about it.
Grow up people! You live on the planet Earth! Despite trying for the last decade or so to make everything and everyone around us "politically correct" (such a dumb and overused term), the world around you is far from it. You're offended when I say "God, I had a rough day."? GET OVER IT. That is my right. I can speak with, at, and about my creator in any way I please.
You know what offends me? Topics like this. But do you see me starting threads like: "EM's over sensitive ears; please conform to them."? No, you don't, because the entire notion is silly.
What really offends me are Muslim extremists trying to represent all of Islam with hate and fear as they blow stuff up and saw off heads.
What offends me are corrupt politicians who claim they fight for freedom when they are really fighting to line the pockets of their rich buddies.
What offends me are thousands of Africans dropping dead every day from poverty and disease while we complain about stuff like THIS!
posted
Had someone said that to you in the park, I'd agree. Or in a store, or a library, or very definitely in your own home.
But common courtesy demands you respect the wishes of your host whether you agree with them or not, and our host's wishes have been fairly clearly stated. If you don't, and cannot comply, don't post here.
This discussion is moot to me as I don't subscribe to any of the religious beliefs mentioned, but it costs me nothing to be polite to other forum members. And if I do, they might be more inclined to listen respectfully to me when I talk about Muslim extremists, politicians, disease in Africa, etc.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're missing the point. I do extend common courtesy. I restrict my swearing to about zero. I find the requirements of this thread to be silly. What's next? I can't express anger? Or how about any opinion other than the status quo?
I find this thread offensive. I find that the need for this forum to have us tip toe around so no one's feelings are hurt to be ridiculous.
But since I don't deserve the same courtesy as the others do, that's okay. It's alright for those that need to structure the world around them into a non-offensive manner so they can pull their heads out of the sand.
Let's not deal with the real world kiddies; lets change what little of it we experience so we don't have to face how ugly it really is. Let's make people conform to our sensibilities so we don't have to deal with bad feelings.
posted
Surely "Thank God" can hardly be taking the name in vain; isn't it more in the nature of a prayer? It's giving praise, just a bit more succinctly than "Our Father, thou who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name." Perhaps the offended types could be a bit more specific on what kinds of use they find offensive? Not that I'll take any notice, in fact I can't remember the last time I used 'God' for emphasis in writing, but clarification is always good.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
You're more than welcome to discuss, criticize, or condemn the subject, and I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise. I was responding to this: "You're offended when I say "God, I had a rough day."? GET OVER IT. That is my right. I can speak with, at, and about my creator in any way I please."
And it's the right of the people here to ask you to please stop, at least in their presence. Entirely up to you how you respond, but I submit that respecting the preferences of those around you now that you know what they are, silly though you may find them, is polite in this place.
Ordinarily I wouldn't bother jumping in. I don't share the reaction, and in any other forum it would be absurd to expect that kind of restriction. But Hatrack has managed over the last decade or so to be remarkably free of rough language, trolls, flamewars, and all the other things that plague Internet discussion boards. Hatrack remains the only place I will discuss religion or politics for that very reason, because somehow a pocket of civility has been maintained. I think it's worth the extra effort.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: EM, You've been trying to tone it down and take other people's perspectives into account, and, from what I've seen, you've done a pretty good job of that. I don't think you lived up to that in this thread. Just my opinion though.
Yes, I think you're right my friend. This thread bothers me. I have stated my opinion, and battering others over the head with it is not in true spirit of empathy or diplomacy. I'm going to retire from it. Everyone knows where I stand; I can't add anything more productive to it. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Chris Bridges: ...Hatrack has managed over the last decade or so to be remarkably free of rough language, trolls, flamewars, and all the other things that plague Internet discussion boards. Hatrack remains the only place I will discuss religion or politics for that very reason, because somehow a pocket of civility has been maintained. I think it's worth the extra effort.
I concede to your point. The control displayed in here is why I enjoy these forums as well. Posts: 339 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Granted, now I feel the urge to run out and take the Lord's name in vain twenty or thirty times...
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
This does bring up a tangential point - the difficulty of weaning yourself off of profanity. I've tried, for some years now, to stop using religious-based oaths on the simple principle that it's silly for an apatheist to keep using them. I've tried the science fictional replacements and various soundalikes, but when I'm really, abruptly upset I revert back to the old standards. It's annoying.
Lately I've decided to try the Firefly technique and use "gorram" and Chinese. A bit trickier, but what the heck.
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'd just like to point out that viewing cursing as breaking that commandment is not unique to Mormons. Nathan Bedford Forrest once wrote that they were able to transport their mules across a river only with considerable breakage of the 3rd commandment. And it was one of the throwbacks to the 50's in "Blast from the Past".
Good Cod, people. Get a grip. Uhg, the very thought of gripping cod makes me want to wash my hands.
Posts: 2010 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
) comments were on par.![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Wall Bash]](graemlins/wallbash.gif)
![[Cool]](cool.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
