a victory for free speech

[eots]

**** !!!...****....****....**** ?? ****

cuuuunt[...wow that felt good...I love the sound of the word **** in the morning.... it sounds like...freedom

 

[Shattered]

Do you feel better after that disgusting display of infantile behavior?

"Look, Ma! No brains!"

 

[Gunny]

**** !!!...****....****....**** ?? ****

cuuuunt[...wow that felt good...i love the sound of the word **** in the morning it sounds like...freedom

And sure as shit, along comes a classless moron to make the case for censorship. If not for idiots like you, there wouldn't be word filters.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

And sure as shit, along comes a classless moron to make the case for censorship. If not for idiots like you, there wouldn't be word filters.

So all I need do is repeat a word a bunch of times in a post like this idiot did and I can get you to censor it?

 

[Shattered]

So all I need do is repeat a word a bunch of times in a post like this idiot did and I can get you to censor it?

Where did you get that it was resensored?

 

[Gunny]

So all I need do is repeat a word a bunch of times in a post like this idiot did and I can get you to censor it?

Did I censor HIS post? Or just comment on it?

 

[Glori.B]

And sure as shit, along comes a classless moron to make the case for censorship. If not for idiots like you, there wouldn't be word filters.

i appreciate what you were trying to do sarg... like jillian said, it's odd that it even came up for debate, but if it makes reeeeal men like mister eots feel big, then by all means, it's all about the freeeedom baybeeee...



(i miss the little eye roller dude... where did he go?)

 

[eots]

i appreciate what you were trying to do sarg... like jillian said, it's odd that it even came up for debate, but if it makes reeeeal men like mister eots feel big, then by all means, it's all about the freeeedom baybeeee...



(i miss the little eye roller dude... where did he go?)

freedoms use em er lose em...I think next..i will purchase a new fire arm..then maybe assembly in public for awhile ..finish off the day petitioning the government the ....freedom baby !!!

 

[RetiredGySgt]

freedoms use em er lose em...I think next..i will purchase a new fire arm..then maybe assembly in public for awhile ..finish off the day petitioning the government the ....freedom baby !!!

Take your new firearm to a Government building and assemble it there. You can then petition to be let out of jail LOL.

 

[eots]

the history of the c ..word

Censorship


In some contexts, '****' remained a socially acceptable word until very recently: "in rural areas [of England in the 1960s] the word was still being used as an ordinary everyday term, at least when applied to a cow's vulva" (James McDonald, 1988). However, besides this location- and usage-specific example, '****' has been the primary English language taboo for over five centuries. I have attempted to ascertain approximately when the word first became taboo, and have also documented the history of its media censorship.

The censorship of '****' is a cyclical process: initially, the word was socially acceptable, then it became taboo, and more recently it can be found with increasing regularity in both print and broadcast media. This gradual mainstream acceptance represents an erosion of the word's taboo status.

'****' was used medically by Lanfranc, who, in the early fifteenth century, wrote: "In wymmen [the] neck of [the] bladdre is schort, [and] is maad fast to the cunte" (14--). Two hundred years later, however, the '****' taboo was firmly in place: Minsheu rendered it "Cu [and] c" ('Cu etc.', 1617) and John Fletcher resorted to "They write sunt with a C, which is abominable" (1622). It is not possible to unequivocally identify the date from which '****' first became taboo, though Mark Morton (2003) provides a rough guide: "Up until the fourteenth century or so, **** appears not to have been a taboo word. [...] By the fifteenth century, however, the word **** seems to have shifted toward the taboo. [...] Near the end of the seventeenth century, the word **** was firmly ensconced in obscenity".

Southwark's 'Gropecuntelane' dates from 1230, indicating that, at that time, the word may have been bawdy but was not obscene. Similarly, the earliest example of a '****' surname is that of Godwin Clawecunte from 1066, and the latest is Bele Wydecunthe's from 1328. Lanfranc, writing one hundred years later, does not disguise the word, though Geoffrey Chaucer does.

Chaucer, in his Canterbury Tales, employs the deliberately faux-archaic spelling 'queynte' (variants: 'queynt', 'qwaynt', 'quaynte', 'queinte', 'coynte', and 'coint'; modern spelling: 'queint') as a substitute for '****'. Eric Partridge suggests that, to form 'queynte', "Chaucer may have combined Old French coing with Middle English cunte or he may have been influenced by the Old French cointe" (1931), and Mark Morton suggests a link to 'quaint', though the simplest explanation is that Chaucer added the 'nte' mediaeval suffix of '****' to the feminine 'qu' prefix. William Shakespeare's "acquaint" in his Sonnet XX (1609[a]) is a disguised reference to both 'quaint' and '****'. Andrew Marvell uses similar literary camouflage in To His Coy Mistress, with a reference to "quaint honour" (1653):

"Thy beauty shall no more be found;
Nor, in thy marble vault, shall sound
My echoing song: the worms shall try
That long preserved virginity:
And your quaint honour turn to dust;
And into ashes all my lust".

Three hundred and fifty years later, an If... cartoon by Steve Bell also disguised '****', this time by rendering it as the faux-French "QUEURNT" (2003). Perhaps this comic example adds a new dimension to Chaucer's 'queynte', which can be seen as a similarly exoticised rendering of '****'.

The Canterbury Tales, which are full of more minor swearwords such as 'shit' and 'piss' though not the tabooed '****' (except in disguised form), were written at the very end of the fourteenth century, thus it seems that '****' was an acceptable term throughout the Middle Ages, becoming taboo during the late fourteenth century. Peter Fryer contends that "it has been avoided in written and polite spoken English since the fifteenth century" (1963). There was almost certainly a period of transition, during which the word's status gradually changed from acceptability to taboo, just as, five hundred years later, it is in transition again, from taboo to acceptability.

****: Censorship [matthewhunt.com]

 

[eots]

This is not a porn site. As usual, eots, you push too far and only serve to reinforce for previous post.

Keep your filth off the board.

Gunny

 

[Diuretic]

freedoms use em er lose em...I think next..i will purchase a new fire arm..then maybe assembly in public for awhile ..finish off the day petitioning the government the ....freedom baby !!!

I don't agree with "use them or lose them." I think that applies to muscles, brains and balls primarily. Your freedoms are limited by government action. That requires eyes and ears working 100%. It also requires brain to be engaged. It's not necessary to continually exercise a right or freedom to maintain it. If that was so then we'd be voting in an election every bloody week!

Similarly with the right to use a word in the forums. Yes, you apparently have the right, granted to you by the owner. The question is, do you feel the need to use it just because you can? It's sort of reminiscent of the kid who, once he or she gets to the legal drinking age, goes out and gets absolutely pissed off their face. Next morning they're saying, "jeez I wish I hadn't have done that".

 

[eots]

I don't agree with "use them or lose them." I think that applies to muscles, brains and balls primarily. Your freedoms are limited by government action. That requires eyes and ears working 100%. It also requires brain to be engaged. It's not necessary to continually exercise a right or freedom to maintain it. If that was so then we'd be voting in an election every bloody week!

Similarly with the right to use a word in the forums. Yes, you apparently have the right, granted to you by the owner. The question is, do you feel the need to use it just because you can? It's sort of reminiscent of the kid who, once he or she gets to the legal drinking age, goes out and gets absolutely pissed off their face. Next morning they're saying, "jeez I wish I hadn't have done that".

that would be the expected response from some kiss the queens arse colonist Aussie ****

 

[Diuretic]

that would be the expected response from some kiss the queens arse colonist Aussie ****

I take it that means you haven't got a response to my post.

I win

 

[editec]

People who insist that we must use officially approved non-offending euphemisms to discuss concepts offend me far more than any crude language, personally.

If a word offends you, it is YOUR superego's problem dealing with the subject itself, not the word that is the root source of your discomfort.

If someone is being a prick, we know that we are not saying they are a penis, don't we? We know perfectly well that we mean .. that person is being unpleasant in an open and obviously aggressive way.

If someone is accused of being a **** we also know that what is meant is that , too. We mean that someone is being unpleasant or unreasonable in a passive-aggressive, probably thoroughly dishonest way.

Useful but complex ideas like that are often assigned vulgar (meaning common, BTW) words that some word police people object to.

What these word police are really objecting to is being called out for their behavior, and they truly imagine if they can take away your shortcut description of them, then they can continue playing their games and there's nothing you can say about it.

Bullshit, says I.

If the word fits use it.

 

[Gunny]

People who insist that we must use officially approved non-offending euphemisms to discuss concepts offend me far more than any crude language, personally.

If a word offends you, it is YOUR superego's problem dealing with the subject itself, not the word that is the root source of your discomfort.

If someone is being a prick, we know that we are not saying they are a penis, don't we? We know perfectly well that we mean .. that person is being unpleasant in an open and obviously aggressive way.

If someone is accused of being a **** we also know that what is meant is that , too. We mean that someone is being unpleasant or unreasonable in a passive-aggressive, probably thoroughly dishonest way.

Useful but complex ideas like that are often assigned vulgar (meaning common, BTW) words that some word police people object to.

What these word police are really objecting to is being called out for their behavior, and they truly imagine if they can take away your shortcut description of them, then they can continue playing their games and there's nothing you can say about it.

Bullshit, says I.

If the word fits use it.

Nice try except that I would argue that most foul words are used for no more reason than to shock and offend. And as those words become overused and worn out, the envelope is pushed even further to worse words, or phrases containing them.

Take this issue specifically. We had ONE word in the word filter and it was just intolerable to a few. So we had a vote, the word was removed. Anlong comes one member who from that time to this hasn't been able to type hardly any other word and getting no response to that, posts some pornographic crap.

So it's also just about pushing the envelope to push the envelope. Now he can whine his ass off about having his porn censored.

Liberals demand all these rights, but when they get them refuse to accept the responsibility that goes with them, and immediately set out to tear down the next barrier.

And we wonder where our morals have gone. Straight left, down the shitter is where.

 

[eots]

hh huh..huh he said...shiitter

 

[eots]

****
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
For the album by Australian grindcore band Blood Duster, see **** (album).
**** (IPA:/kʌnt/) is an English language vulgarism referring generally to the female genitalia.[1] The earliest citation of this usage, circa 1230, is in the Oxford English Dictionary, referring to the London street known as "Gropecunt Lane".

"****" is also used informally as a derogatory epithet in referring to either sex, but this usage is relatively recent, dating back only as far as the late nineteenth century.[2] The Compact Oxford English Dictionary defines "****" as "an unpleasant or stupid person", whereas Merriam-Webster defines the term as "a disparaging term for a woman"; the Macquarie Dictionary of Australian English defines it as "a despicable man."

The word appears to have been in common usage during the Middle Ages until the eighteenth century, and after a period of disuse, began to be used more frequently in the twentieth century and in particular in parallel with the rise of popular literature and pervasive media.

The term also has various other derived uses and like "fuck" and its derivatives, has been used mutatis mutandis as noun, pronoun, verb, adjective, participle and other parts of speech. **** - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[manu1959]

Online Etymology Dictionary

****
"female intercrural foramen," or, as some 18c. writers refer to it, "the monosyllable," M.E. cunte "female genitalia," akin to O.N. kunta, from P.Gmc. *kunton, of uncertain origin. Some suggest a link with L. cuneus "wedge," others to PIE base *geu- "hollow place," still others to PIE *gwen-, root of queen and Gk. gyne "woman." The form is similar to L. cunnus "female pudenda," which is likewise of disputed origin, perhaps lit. "gash, slit," from PIE *sker- "to cut," or lit. "sheath," from PIE *kut-no-, from base *(s)keu- "to conceal, hide." First known reference in Eng. is said to be c.1230 Oxford or London street name Gropecuntlane, presumably a haunt of prostitutes. Avoided in public speech since 15c.; considered obscene since 17c. Du. cognate de kont means "a bottom, an arse." Du. also has attractive poetic slang ways of expressing this part, such as liefdesgrot, lit. "cave of love," and vleesroos "rose of flesh." Alternate form cunny is attested from c.1720 but is certainly much earlier and forced a change in the pronunciation of coney (q.v.), but it was good for a pun while coney was still the common word for "rabbit": "A pox upon your Christian cockatrices! They cry, like poulterers' wives, 'No money, no coney.' " [Massinger, 1622]

 

[editec]

I would argue that most foul words are used for no more reason than to shock and offend.

I quite agree. That is exactly their purpose.

That is, in fact, why terms like these are coined in the first place.

Apparently other people understood why those metaphors worked so well to describe a particular kind of behavior, too. that's why they became part of the venacular.

Now, are you objecting to the word, or are you objecting to sentiment behind the word, gunny?

Would you not be offened if I called you a vagina?

I think you might be offended if that word were used to describe you, too, right?

Has that word been banished from this site?

No?

Why not?

It means the same thing. It is just as vulgar if used like the other word.

I'm not trying to defend the use of that or any other word, but I am trying to understand why some words offend some of us so much more than other words meaning exactly the same thing.