Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Vulgarity: the style of our days
The Remnant ^ | Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

Posted on 07/30/2002 4:37:41 PM PDT by aconservaguy

Return to Main Remnant Page

"Language is the Dress of Thought"

Vulgarity: the style of our days

Marian T. Horvat, Ph.D.

COLUMNIST, California

As an ambitious young man in his teens, George Washington copied 110 rules of good manners from an English courtesy book of the previous century. He studied and "committed to the memory" these rules of genteel behavior because he realized that to rise in society, one must know how to behave, speak, and dress as a gentleman. One of the rules, which touches on the subject of this article, was simple and categorical: "Use no reproachful language against anyone, neither curse nor revile."[1]

I am sorry to say most young and ambitious persons today would laugh at such advice. We are living in an age when insulting others and 'sassing' family and friends are considered good humor. Cursing is so common that even the most obscene profanities are heard in homes and classrooms. And language in general has lost a polished tone and is becoming increasingly vulgar and prosaic. Some might foolishly call this a byproduct of the uninhibited freedom of modernity. I would qualify it differently: I would call it the fruit of the egalitarian Revolution that aims to do away with everything that distinguishes, refines, and ennobles.

"Language is the dress of thought," is the famous statement of Samuel Johnson, who was only translating the words of a Roman, Quintillion. If what you wear reflects what you are, then your style of speech indicates your thinking. The Sorbonne cultural revolution of the 20th century did not affect only dress and manners, but also speech, which has become correspondingly vulgar and egalitarian. Most certainly, it reflects modern thought born from a revolutionary and egalitarian philosophy.

The revolutionaries of the French Revolution who preached a false liberty from tradition and past conventions were motivated by the perverse desire to be free of all proprieties and formalities, all the dictates of the established order. They wanted to turn everything upside down, to toss out everything monarchical and aristocratic from the Old Regime. For example, one of their first mandates was that all should be addressed as “Citizen,” because they wanted to abolish all titles and courtesies of address of Christian Civilization.

If we analyze our history, we can see that in many senses we received a similar revolutionary influence. What has today come to be called the American spirit has certain parallels with the egalitarian and unrestrained way of presenting oneself that characterized the French Revolution.

Most of us today have been formed from the time we were young in the school of casualness and practicality. There is a natural tendency to reject formalities and embrace the vulgar, to revolt against the manners and speech of a genteel society in favor of a more relaxed and casual attitude and way of being. In the revolution of the 1960s, this expanded to include revolt against any and all conventions as part of the "right" one had to be oneself. In fact, this desire to break with conventions and order, to revolt against logic and hierarchy, to say whatever one wants whenever one likes, is at depth a principle contrary to all order.

Therefore, the Catholic who would truly like to fight the egalitarian trend in temporal society, the Catholic who truly desires a restoration of Christian Civilization, would by principle choose to love everything that is cultivated, elevating, and ennobling, and likewise avoid everything that is ignoble, base, and coarse. This includes vulgar and egalitarian language.

The vulgar: one step toward the blasphemous

Some years ago, when I was a principal of a girls’ school, a mother came into my office to complain about her children's foul language. To describe the horrible words she was hearing, she herself used a scatological term.

"Don't you think that perhaps it might be better not to use words like that if you want to set a good example for your children?" I asked. The lady looked surprised. "That isn't really a bad word, just a little crass. You should hear the words they are using!"

What the good lady did not realize was that the revolution in language is like that in dress and customs. It is a process. Like the snowball at the top of mountain, little revolutionary habits and customs can seem small at the outset, but by the time the snowball has reached the bottom of the mountain, it has the speed and weight to cause enormous damage. If a lady begins to pepper her speech with little "harmless" vulgarities, she is preparing her children to use more offensive and perhaps even blasphemous terms. And by the time the grandchildren appear, she will be stunned to find households like the “Ozzies,” one of the latest TV shows that I've heard is teeming with violently vulgar language employed regularly by both parents and children.

There is only one effective way to stop the eventual avalanche of vulgarity. It is to stop the snowball before it begins its descent. Absolutely no profanity or vulgarity.

Then, a kind of inoculation against the vulgar must be administered. How? The most effective way I know is by cultivating a taste for refined speech and manners in the home to keep its members from becoming co-natural with the vulgar. I remember the violent shock I felt in high school the first time I heard some classmates using profanities with great naturality. I remember a second shock as I realized that these popular terms and blasphemies seemed part of a code that opened the doors to popularity. Thanks to the general good ambience of my home, I could not adopt the code. I cannot even imagine what today's young men and women in high school - and much younger - have to face.

Combating egalitarian language

Given the advanced stage of the revolutionary process we are facing, it is not enough to simply eschew outright profanities and vulgar expressions to re-cultivate the Catholic spirit in the home. It is necessary to make a real effort to confront the egalitarian trend of language that aims at abolishing formal niceties and genteel speech.

Good manners and fine speech used to be a mark of a refined person, a socially distinguishing mark. "Yes, she was a Daughter of the Sacred Heart," implied an education where girl learned not only algebra and history, but also the social arts. She was educated to be a lady. Likewise, a young man with fine education was a gentleman. Following an age-old Christian chivalric code, he knew how to act in society, with special polished manners he employed as a sign of respect for ladies – yes, even for his sisters, and especially for his mother.

It is a sign of a degenerate and disintegrating society when even the "well-bred" or wealthy no longer aspire to fine manners and cultivated speech in private as well as public life, but prefer a world of banalities. After forty years of the Cultural Revolution, persons of all classes and professions have become co-natural with the vulgar, the common, and the casual. The language we hear around us reflects an egalitarian impulse toward leveling all speech and thinking to the most basic and elementary. I don’t need to provide examples. One need only turn on the radio or television to hear the slang and loose tone of everyday conversation.

Many persons have become acclimated to this kind of modern egalitarian ambience where everything, including language, is easygoing, informal, and trendy. When they look to the past and consider the small disciplines of courtesy born from Christian Civilization, such as "If you permit me, sir," "I'd be delighted," "Could you be so kind as to wait one moment?” "What is the state of her health?" they are amused or even revolted. How old-fashioned! What a waste of words and time…

Why? Because of an egalitarian trend in culture that wants to break with everything – including language – that has form and polish, everything that is elevated and refined. This mentality is worthy of repulse, because it professes a love for what is low, common, and vulgar. Ultimately, it ends in the modern taste for the monstrous and blasphemous.

Anti-egalitarian attitudes

The anti-egalitarian Catholic is opposed not just to the leveling of the hierarchical structure of the Church. He abhors the leveling and vulgarization of everything in both the spiritual and temporal spheres. He seeks the most elevated in everything in order to admire what is above him and understand it as a reflection of the perfection and sublimity of Our Lord Jesus Christ. He loves what is noble and elevated in the world because he loves God.

The restoration of Christian civilization will be effected by those non-egalitarian souls with a hierarchical spirit who always wants to see, know, and love what is more sublime and elevated. This includes language, the dress of thought.

XXX

Return to Main Remnant Page


TOPICS: Culture/Society
KEYWORDS:
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

1 posted on 07/30/2002 4:37:41 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
As Ozzy would retort:

"Who the ---- gives a ----ing damn about this bunch of ----ing idiots on the ----ing Tele that no ----ing any ----ing body even knows the ---- about? Me foot ----ing hurts. Who told you this ----ing shit? You ----ing lying to me again? Whot, now you ----ing just want more ----ing money, ain't that it, you ----ing bitch. when the ----ing Queen is Kanightin me like McCartney, I'm ----ing gonna tell her about your ----ing trying to rip me off..You ain't got a chance, ya know, cause I am a cult hero. You ----ing know that, don't ya? Yer name's Sharon, right? How the ---- did you get in my ----ing house? Who the ---- are you and who the ---- are these ----ing odd children? "

Welcome to the molecular world of a burned out idiot.

A rehash just seemed the right thing to do...
2 posted on 07/30/2002 4:41:50 PM PDT by Vidalia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
What is so frustrating is a general breakdown of common courtesy, across the board.
3 posted on 07/30/2002 4:42:54 PM PDT by Paul Atreides
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Bump!
4 posted on 07/30/2002 4:57:15 PM PDT by JimSEA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
I was raised to never curse around women, which is probably a compromise for when my forebears refused to stop cursing entirely. Things were OK when I moved my family to Canada in 1970. When we moved back in 1980, young women had acquired a filthy mouth they seemed proud of. Oddly, they didn't acquire the admonition to keep their curses between themselves and other women. They used every word I ever heard as if the language were every day parlor talk. It hasn't gotten any worse since, but then, how could it?
5 posted on 07/30/2002 5:06:05 PM PDT by gcruse
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
The trouble, of course, is that when you start limiting speech, where does one draw the line? Isn't that what political correctness is all about? Stifling speech under the guise of not offending others?

I bemoan the coarsening of our culture but I fail to see how my wearing blue jeans to work contributes to it. What I've seen in my lifetime is first the skills for putdown are acquired through situation comedy television and peer groups, next sex enters the picture, usually around the same time as alcohol and drugs. Finally, there is high school and college and - voila! - you have a crude, sex-obsessed lout with the courtesy and verbal skills of a motorcycle gang.

And because youth is all about shocking one's elders (even if it means lemming-like subserviance to the fashion trends of your antisocial peers), each new generation must find something even more offensive and shocking than the last one in order to establish their own boundaries.

Imagine when we've devolved to the point that courtesy, modesty and godliness becomes the trendy way to shock others. I suspect it will arrive in the next two or three generations.

6 posted on 07/30/2002 5:31:42 PM PDT by Tall_Texan
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
While I agree that people could stand to be more polite and respectful of one another, I have to say that this is one *bleep*ing arrogant article.
7 posted on 07/30/2002 5:52:20 PM PDT by Semper911
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"If you would find a thing, seek it's opposite."
8 posted on 07/30/2002 5:56:20 PM PDT by The Duke
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
,,, it all seems to be going to hell in a handbasket. Standards ain't what they used to be, for sure.
9 posted on 07/30/2002 5:58:28 PM PDT by shaggy eel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"After forty years of the Cultural Revolution, persons of all classes and professions have become co-natural with the vulgar, the common, and the casual."

For the most part I agree with this article. There is far too much coarse behavior.

But when you start refering to people by class, you cross the line and become pompous. Part of the American Revolution was to do away with titles of nobility.

10 posted on 07/30/2002 6:21:24 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
But it did not do away with classes. Quite the contrary: in most states there was an unmistakeable distinction between those who were propertied (and franchised) and those who were un-propertied. And a society that permits the ownership of slaves certainly has at least two classes.

Just because titles in the European sense were forbidden by the Constitution does not mean that classes did not exist, or that the framers attempted to create a classless society. In a sense, this Constitutional prohibition could be construed as rank hypocrisy. Thomas Jefferson may have been Mister Jefferson, but as a slave-owner he had greater power of life and death over a greater number of people than any European count or duke.

11 posted on 07/30/2002 9:18:01 PM PDT by Goetz_von_Berlichingen
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Goetz_von_Berlichingen
"Thomas Jefferson may have been Mister Jefferson, but as a slave-owner he had greater power of life and death over a greater number of people than any European count or duke."

Your argument is well presented, but the above sentence is a bit of a stretch. European aristocracy had far to much control over far too many people. This included power over life and death. And they were not elected, they gained power because they were born into certain families.

12 posted on 07/30/2002 10:09:48 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
But when you start refering to people by class, you cross the line and become pompous. Part of the American Revolution was to do away with titles of nobility.

Not disagreeing, but what does mention of classes have to do with nobility? Couldn't it just be reference to everyday economic or social classes?

13 posted on 07/31/2002 1:48:20 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"Not disagreeing, but what does mention of classes have to do with nobility?"

Oh, I don't know.

A:Upper class.Nobility and those who scam their way into elected office.

B:Lower class.The rest of us.

I did forget a part of the upper class. Academics that have never been forced to deal with reality but consider themselves on a higher plane somehow.Bill and Hillary come to mind as do most liberal democrats.

14 posted on 07/31/2002 7:24:05 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Semper911
While I agree that people could stand to be more polite and respectful of one another, I have to say that this is one *bleep*ing arrogant article.

Bump.

15 posted on 07/31/2002 7:50:24 PM PDT by Mark Turbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
As an ambitious young man in his teens, George Washington copied 110 rules of good manners from an English courtesy book of the previous century.

George Washington's Rules of Civility and Decent Behavior:

This is good advice for us all, even Dr. Horvat. It's more down to earth than this article IMO.

You can find these rules quoted along with a few others in Gary Aldrich's book Unlimited Access.

16 posted on 07/31/2002 8:02:26 PM PDT by Mark Turbo
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
Oh, I don't know. A:Upper class.Nobility and those who scam their way into elected office. B:Lower class.The rest of us.

I think you're being too broad in your analysis. Where's the "nobility" you speak of? Also, those who "scam their way into elected office" may not necessarily be upper class; what if they start out in the "lower class?" How does scamming one's way into "elected office" make one of the upper class? As for this "lower class" being "the rest of us": I think you're tossing too many folks into one pot; there are distinctions to be made. What is the purpose of this broad distinction you make? To contrast those with power with those without?

I did forget a part of the upper class. Academics that have never been forced to deal with reality but consider themselves on a higher plane somehow.Bill and Hillary come to mind as do most liberal democrats.

can't forget about those guys, lol.

17 posted on 08/01/2002 1:04:45 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"What is the purpose of this broad distinction you make? To contrast those with power to those without?"

In a word, yes. Why is someone born of a certain familiy deemed superior when ,in most cases, they clearly are not. The Kennedys are a good example. Joe senior made his fortune running bootleg whiskey out of Canada. Now these sewer trout are touted as American royalty.

Another example is the "The Royal Family of Great Britain". They amount to little more than well paid welfare recipients that serve no usefull purpose that I can see. Yet many bow and scrape before them.

To put yourself or anyone else in a certain class robs you ,or them, of individuality. Something the so called upper class and government wonks rely on to hold on to power.

I hope this explains my position.

18 posted on 08/01/2002 9:54:25 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
It explains your position, yes. Thanks. Although, I think the British royal family is a bit more than "well paid welfare recipients that serve no usefull purpose[...]" But, that's just me.
19 posted on 08/02/2002 2:10:55 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
To put yourself or anyone else in a certain class robs you ,or them, of individuality.

This is a very interesting point. How does placing one's self in a "class" rob one's "individuality?" And why is this necessarly bad? What's so important about "individuality"? Assuming you dislike the classes, what do you propose as an alternative to the current class system? Would you re-engineer the class system? Would you abolish all classes? If classes destroy individuality, then what upholds or promotes it?

I think it is more complex than simply good and bad, rich and rest. The example of the Kennedy's shows how bad some people of the upper class are; but people of other classes are just as worse. You seem to imply from the Kennedy's that all people of the upper class are bad, which is certainly not the case. There are some inequalities which are good -- class distinctions is one of them. I think there will always be different classes; Social and economic classes seem just natural outgrowths of the differences (superficial or not) betweem humans.

Something the so called upper class and government wonks rely on to hold on to power.

Do you have any proof of this?

20 posted on 08/02/2002 3:48:41 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"How does placing one's self in a "class" rob one's "individuality?"

You might want to read Nietzsche concerning the herd mentality.

"And why is this necessarly bad? What's so important about "individuality"

It's what defines each of us as opposed to being a member of an ant colony. There are no individuals in an ant colony.

21 posted on 08/02/2002 6:30:25 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"Although, I think the British royal family is a bit more than "well paid welfare recipients that serve no usefull purpose[...]" But, that's just me."

Would you care to elaborate on this? Tell me what purpose they serve.

22 posted on 08/02/2002 10:32:25 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
Would you care to elaborate on this? Tell me what purpose they serve.

It's a matter of tradition; they've been around for a long time and people adore them. To get rid of them in one swift kick i think would be a bad move.

23 posted on 08/03/2002 7:53:39 AM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
You might want to read Nietzsche concerning the herd mentality.

ok. what do you recommend? Also, you've not answered the question.

It's what defines each of us as opposed to being a member of an ant colony. There are no individuals in an ant colony.

you're right. there are just ants, lol. But still, within the class a place exists; you'll have an identity and a home within that class -- assuming that those classes promote an ant colony mentality, which i don't think classes do. In fact, I think classes help promote individuality, more so than no classes would. On the other hand, the equality and classless society which seems the alternative to the current system, would do more harm and bring about the herd mentality far worse than the current society does (wasn't it Nietzsche who wrote against equality, saying it promoted, well, the herd mentality?)

Again, what would you propose as alternative to the class system? If classes destroy individuality, then what upholds and promotes it?

24 posted on 08/03/2002 8:12:26 AM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"If classes destroy individuality, then what upholds and promotes it?"

Being yourself I should think. If you want to assign yourself to a certain class and rank please do so. Don't expect me to.

25 posted on 08/03/2002 5:33:29 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"Wasn't it Nietzsche who wrote against equality, saying it promoted, well, the herd mentality?"

But we are not discussing equality here. At least I'm not. No two people are equal. But to be assigned to a certain class thought up on the whim of somebody I've never met and who has his own agenda is illogical in my opinion.

26 posted on 08/03/2002 5:41:59 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
Being yourself I should think. If you want to assign yourself to a certain class and rank please do so. Don't expect me to.

ok. Are other people's "assigning" of class to a person illegitimate? It almost seems that to deny classes denies reality: they exist. Whether or not we like them is irrelevant. What's the alternative to the class society? A classless society? I would think that individuality would be squashed even more in that system than in the current one.

27 posted on 08/03/2002 5:47:18 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"In fact, I think classes help promote individuality, more so than no classes would."

That is an illogical statement. If people group themselves according to class they just lost a part of their individuality. They are now a member of the herd.

28 posted on 08/03/2002 5:50:55 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
But we are not discussing equality here. At least I'm not. No two people are equal. But to be assigned to a certain class thought up on the whim of somebody I've never met and who has his own agenda is illogical in my opinion.

People are assigned to classes "thought up on the whim of" people who have their "own agenda"? Who assigns people to these classes? Who devises these classes? Such a thing may be illogical, but who are the people who do it? Even if it were so, how is it illogical to belong to a "class"? If difference exist, then what is illogical about acknowledging those differences? And, couldn't classes merely be a natural explanataion of, well, the differences (financial, social, whatever) of people in a given society?

29 posted on 08/03/2002 5:52:32 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
That is an illogical statement. If people group themselves according to class they just lost a part of their individuality. They are now a member of the herd.

not necessarily: a person is a member of a "class"; it helps identify who that person is. In that sense, it promote individuality; and, even if it were true, how does one's "grouping" oneself in a class make one a part of the "herd"? Don't a person still have himself? And, what about the bonds built? Are there not advantages to acknowledging class, such as a sense of comraderie? Also, taken in the context of comparing "class" to "no class" society, i think it is an ok statement, in that a classeless society promotes the herd mentality more than a class society would, so a class society promotes individuality more than a classless society would.

30 posted on 08/03/2002 6:00:54 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"Even if it were so, how is it illogical to belong to a "class"?"

If you want to be an individual then grouping yourself is a step in the wrong direction. If you want to be a member of the herd, grouping yourself is the way to go.

31 posted on 08/03/2002 6:01:17 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
A wonderfully appropriate and timely piece. Thank you. I find the language of today not only vulgar, but obscene. On TV and in movies, we hear the worst of this bad language. At first hearing, it shocks us, then embarrasses us, then this wears off and the vulgarity begins to be accepted by the majority of people, especially kids who learn it fast.

I admit, with no apology, that I'm of the generation that finds bad language as sign of the decline of manners and of civilized behavior, including the use of language, but it is apparent that modern generations do not agree.

32 posted on 08/03/2002 6:01:24 PM PDT by Paulus Invictus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy; blackbart.223
Also, i'd just want to add that losing a "part" of your individuality is not the same as losing all of it; i think that presents a false dilemma of either you're in the herd or you're not, which by acknowledging class i don't think is necessarily true.
33 posted on 08/03/2002 6:03:51 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Paulus Invictus
thanks. i'm of the same opinion (although i confess it slips out).
34 posted on 08/03/2002 6:05:05 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
If you want to be an individual then grouping yourself is a step in the wrong direction. If you want to be a member of the herd, grouping yourself is the way to go.

ok, suppose this is true. What's the alternative to a class society?

35 posted on 08/03/2002 6:06:10 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy; WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
Good read. (TG, I know a certain teenage girl in PA who needs to read this....)
36 posted on 08/03/2002 6:07:50 PM PDT by Washington-Husky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
Damn crusty old fogies.

Hell with 'em.
37 posted on 08/03/2002 6:13:04 PM PDT by StoneColdGOP
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"Also, i'd just want to add that losing a "part" of your individuality is not the same as losing all of it.

That's like saying I lost part of my right hand not all of it. It's better to retain your entire right hand wouldn't you say?

38 posted on 08/03/2002 6:15:11 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Paul Atreides
Yes I agree....

I remeber when I would move in and out of my dorm during breaks and at the end and beginning of the school year and I would be carrying loads of boxes and bags and I can't tell you how many guys would rush pass me only to get in before me and slam only to let the door slam in my face -- I hate that!

I absolutely love it when a man opens the door for me or I see him do it for another woman...I always give tell them "thank you" --- usually they seem surprised to hear that...
39 posted on 08/03/2002 6:15:20 PM PDT by oline
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
Sewer trout! Oh that is a perfect description of the Kennedy Klan. Now what for the Klintoons? I started reading Hell to Pay and Hitlary scares me more than before!
40 posted on 08/03/2002 6:18:41 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
That's like saying I lost part of my right hand not all of it. It's better to retain your entire right hand wouldn't you say?

i'd agree i'd rather have all my right hand; however, just because two fingers have been cut off doesn't mean my whole hand is gone. Besides, you're assuming that a class doesn't make up a part of somebody (or promote a person's individuality), which might not be true.

41 posted on 08/03/2002 6:22:00 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 38 | View Replies]

To: Caligirl for Bush
"Now what for the Klintoons?"

Several things come to mind but posting them would violate decorum.

42 posted on 08/03/2002 6:23:01 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: StoneColdGOP; aconservaguy
Bwahaha!

Seriously though acon, I have conflicting views on this. I'll be the first to tell ya that yes on many occasions I'm the worst offender. I TRY to restrict my salinity to duress (e.g. highway situations) and when I am hanging with my buds, as our common parlance comprises it.

However, just down the road there is actually a city ordinance banning public profanity, which I think is a good thing. It really torques me for some reason when folks cuss in front of women and children, or people who would be genuinely offended, and I always feel real bad when I let slip...
Didn't used to feel like that a couple years ago; must be gettin' old... ;)

43 posted on 08/03/2002 6:24:55 PM PDT by maxwell
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: Washington-Husky
Hey now, that teen in PA is a lady........but she had been stung by a frickin bee! I would have been cussing too! lol
44 posted on 08/03/2002 6:27:24 PM PDT by WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
Most of the names I come up with would be rather vulguar but soo appropriate for the two grifters. PIAPS and Sinkmeister are as kind as it gets. :-)
45 posted on 08/03/2002 6:28:29 PM PDT by CARepubGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
"i'd agree i'd rather have all my right hand; however, just because two fingers have been cut off doesn't mean my whole hand is gone. Besides, you're assuming that a class doesn't make up a part of somebody (or promote a person's individuality), which might not be true."

Sorry. But that's to convoluted for me.

46 posted on 08/03/2002 6:28:44 PM PDT by blackbart.223
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: WhyisaTexasgirlinPA
Oh, those frickin' bees! I'd just like to take out my @#$%^& photon ray gun and waste every @#&%'n one of those little @#$%*#%s!!
47 posted on 08/03/2002 6:32:00 PM PDT by Washington-Husky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: aconservaguy
...In public in this nation, speak english, or, you'll get no response from me. In forum and debate, speak english, with reason and logic, or, you'll get no response from me. In private, among peers, be free to express yourself in culture and language that you understand. I will associate, or not...
48 posted on 08/03/2002 6:33:45 PM PDT by gargoyle
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: blackbart.223
Sorry. But that's to convoluted for me.

i'll grant that. believe me, i'd rather have all my hand:)

49 posted on 08/03/2002 6:34:14 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: maxwell
i agree
50 posted on 08/03/2002 6:35:12 PM PDT by aconservaguy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-100101-113 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson