Text 4743, 81 rader
Skriven 2007-07-20 13:43:11 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
   Kommentar till text 4722 av Björn Felten (3:640/305)
Ärende: Ceppa's node number
===========================
20 Jul 07 22:51, Björn Felten wrote to David Drummond:


 DD>> Sure as hell reads that all forms of Satanic worship are illegal to
 DD>> me.

 BF>    Please be advised that Satan as well as Hell, and all related
 BF> words, are profane in the original meaning of the word.

So much for your English expertise. Or should we call it lack of?

Satan was the rebellious angel who in Christian belief is the adversary of
God and lord of evil. Not a profane at all, just another name for Lucifer,
the most beautiful angel.

Hell, in it's original Hebrew/Greek form, meant the grave and that's still
what it means/refers to in the Holy Bible. (capped only because that's the
name of the book, not out of respect for what it contains)

 BF> In Swedish they both are swear words of the worst kind (I'd say 7-8
 BF> on a scale from 1 to 10).

i.e. English words are/were used in Svedish to swear. Interesting. I
wonder which came first, English or Svedish.

 BF> In fact much more serious than fuck, cock, cunt and other sex related
 BF> words,

Hardly.

 BF> that some regard as profanities (they really should look the word up
 BF> in an encyclopaedia to find out what it really means).

Cunt:
1 usually obscene : the female genital organs; also : sexual intercourse
with a woman
2 usually disparaging & obscene

Cock:
1 a : the adult male of the domestic chicken (Gallus gallus) b : the male
of birds other than the domestic chicken

LOL! It seems that the word isn't profane, unless you regard chickens to
be profane.

Fuck:
Etymology: akin to Dutch fokken to breed (cattle), Swedish dialect f¢kka
to copulate

I guess it's only profane in Svedish.

 BF>    So, how do I go about with this? Do I start sending moderator
 BF> warnings as some people expect?

You could, but they'd be ignored or commented on, but no one would take
them/you serious, since you've broken your own rules for so long, no one
pays any attention to you.

 BF>  Or do I simply accept the fact, that we have *huge* cultural, and
 BF> therefore linguistic, differences in this global echo, and that
 BF> what's unacceptable to some are totally acceptable to others?

You can say and do as you wish, no one, but perhaps Jeff Smith and
Drummond will notice, or care.

 BF>    I think I'll (as usual) go for the global idea, so you may proceed
 BF> David and the rest of you following this thread. If only the Moral
 BF> Majority in here could understand the implication of this ruling of
 BF> mine... :(

They already have, before you decided to post this crapola. You fool no
one.

                R\%/itt


"Beware the lollipop of mediocrity! Lick it once and you'll suck
forever..."

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: SATX Alamo Area Net * South * Texas, USA * (1:397/22)