Log in

View Full Version : Censoring in Text Messages, Subtle And Direct Methods


Jon Westfall
07-13-2006, 12:00 AM
<div class='os_post_top_link'><a href='http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060705-7194.html' target='_blank'>http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/pos...60705-7194.html</a><br /><br /></div><i>"Electronics have long been recognized as a weak link when it comes to secure conversation. From bugs hidden in lampshades to phone taps to keystroke tracking software, electronics provide the easy path to monitoring and censoring communications. In no area is that so apparent, perhaps, as in text messaging, as some users around the globe are discovering the hard way. Text messaging and the first level of censorship begins at the phone. While it's certainly possible to enter any word using the alphabetic method in which a=2, b=2-2, c=2-2-2, d=3 and so on, it isn't very convenient. This has led manufacturers to develop alternate systems like T9, which make it easier to enter common words. T9 works by using algorithms to determine what word a user is trying to enter. Punching 2-2-8 might default to "cat" for example, since that's a common word which uses the letters associated with those numbers. It might also give you "bat" however, which is another logical guess based on the letters available through those keystrokes. Usually, a provision is made for selecting words other than the algorithm's first guess. Where things start to get hairy is when a user enters something like 3-8-2-5, which can spell either "dual" or a somewhat naughty word which you won't find in your family newspaper."</i><br /><br />An interesting read for those of us who are concerned about censorship or who live in a country where we like to believe we aren't censored ;) . While T9 doesn't seem to be subtle censoring to me, I suppose the argument could be made, and the other examples cited are certainly censorship. What do you think - should text messages be censored directly or indirectly by manufacturers or governments?

Phoenix
07-13-2006, 07:42 AM
...should text messages be censored directly or indirectly by manufacturers or governments?

If this question pertains to the word choices that T9 and similar input systems offer up, I think the threshold should most definitely exist just short of profanity or vulgar slang. Beyond this, censorship of the input system's word database shouldn't exist unless for purposes of practicality (i.e.: memory limits) and never for political reasons.

T9 or similar input technologies cannot offer up every word in the English (or any other) language, therefore, if so many perfectly fine words must be sacrificed by default in the name of practicality, then what reasonable explanation could someone ever offer up to suggest that their place be taken up with words that are vulgar?

How do we define "vulgar slang"? Well, if any adult needs that term to be expounded upon for their own understanding, then they may not possess the acumen needed to understand the explanation in the first place, so I won't waste my breath on that. It's not rocket science.

That said, the input system should adapt and learn, so if someone chooses to teach it those words and phrases, although I don't agree with the act of using them in speech or written word, it should be that person's choice.

But by default, vulgarities have no place in these input systems.

But if we're talking about blanketed censoring of portions of or entire live messages people are sending back and forth to one another... well, that's another issue altogether and completely inappropriate.

koriel
07-13-2006, 12:04 PM
How do we define "vulgar slang"? Well, if any adult needs that term to be expounded upon for their own understanding, then they may not possess the acumen needed to understand the explanation in the first place, so I won't waste my breath on that. It's not rocket science.

The crux of the matter is that you do need to define what is vulgar language. For example, some people take offense at the word "bloody" unfortunately this word is either offensive or a perfectly valid adjective describing something covered in blood. My personal feeling is that if a word exists in a "standard" dictionary (e.g. Oxford English for UK English speakers) then it should also be allowed to exist in the T9 database.

Yes, this will allow some vulgar language, but to my mind that is the price you pay for having a rich, expressive language. It has to be able to express concepts you may not necessarily wish to hear as well as those you do.

Phoenix
07-13-2006, 12:53 PM
...The crux of the matter is that you do need to define what is vulgar language...

I think you're missing my point. The point I was making was that I don't have to define it in order to make my points clear in my original post.

I'll leave the details you're referring to, up to the people who create T9 and similar input software.

And to address your point with the word "bloody", you're citing an exception, not a rule, because that word does refer to something covered in blood, and that's the way most English speaking people are going to interpret that word. I don't think we're going to have that duality with words like the "F" word and other similarly vulgar terms.

We may have to agree to disagree, but I think with hundreds of thousands of words, you can have a rich expressive language in a well rounded database without the most vulgar of words. I don't need software to help me fill in the missing letters to the word sh**. I can do that myself if I have to.

If people want vulgarity, they can add it themselves to their own database. The path of least resistance is the best way here in the way that you're not going to offend a user or make them feel robbed because vulgarities were omitted, but you will offend many for including them. I think that's something that the vast majority of people across the board would agree with.

rocky_raher
07-13-2006, 04:27 PM
[quote]For example, some people take offense at the word "bloody" unfortunately this word is either offensive or a perfectly valid adjective describing something covered in blood.

Another example (and pardon me if I offend, but I can see no simple way to make this point without actually using the word) is "shag." I understand that, in Britain, this is a synonym of 3-8-2-5. Almost all Americans have no idea that it can have anything other than innocent definitions. We have shag carpeting, shaggy haircuts, shaggy dogs (including main characters in Disney movies!) and shaggy dog stories. When my daughter was 12 I wouldn't let her get an Austin Powers t-shirt which used the word "shagadelic" because I considered it inappropriate, and she was rather puzzled.

----------------------
Changing the subject, one of the articles linked to used the acronyms PITA, BFD, and BTHOM. I know the first two, but can't fathom the third. So, I'll just admit my ignorance and ask what it means.

wbuch
07-13-2006, 06:50 PM
In response to the original question, the only "censorship" we should be concerned about is that which is done by force, i.e. by a government. I don't consider anything offered by a private company to be true censorship, because the free market always offers you choices.

Phoenix
07-14-2006, 05:20 AM
...Another example...is "shag."I understand that, in Britain, this is a synonym of 3-8-2-5. Almost all Americans have no idea that it can have anything other than innocent definitions. We have shag carpeting, shaggy haircuts, shaggy dogs (including main characters in Disney movies!) and shaggy dog stories. When my daughter was 12 I wouldn't let her get an Austin Powers t-shirt which used the word "shagadelic" because I considered it inappropriate, and she was rather puzzled.

This is another exception. Those types of words may end up being accepted as default due to the nature of their dual or multiple meanings based on location of usage or context. I'm certain there are many words that fit this profile, but there are certain terms that are vulgar and have the same meaning regardless of geographical location or context. These words are the ones that should certainly be excluded by default.

In response to the original question, the only "censorship" we should be concerned about is that which is done by force, i.e. by a government. I don't consider anything offered by a private company to be true censorship, because the free market always offers you choices.

Interesting perspective. Of course, the article goes beyond simpler aspects of language and touches on the issue of monitoring and filtering text messages as well. And especially in these dangerous days, this is a very touchy subject. I don't agree with a government filtering private messages whatsoever, but rhetorically speaking, would monitoring ever be necessary? This gets into privacy vs. safety issues as it pertains to technology and terrorist and criminal activities.

rocky_raher
07-14-2006, 02:47 PM
Changing the subject, one of the articles linked to used the acronyms PITA, BFD, and BTHOM. I know the first two, but can't fathom the third. So, I'll just admit my ignorance and ask what it means.

"Beats the heck outta me"
Thank you to acronyms.thefreedictionary.com.

Steve Jordan
07-15-2006, 02:54 PM
Excuse me, but are we debating whether free speech should be censored? Or are we just trying to figure out ways of slicing cusswords out of text messages?

Either way, let it go. Say what you want, even if some consider it vulgar. If others don't want to hear you speak, they'll stop listening. But if what you have to say has substance...

...then maybe it isn't vulgar after all...

And to the original question: No censorship by companies, governments, or software.

Brad Adrian
07-15-2006, 07:18 PM
For some reason, this issue doesn't seem that complicated to me. My guess is that at one point the phone and/or T9 software developers asked themselves which is more likely: that customers will get upset that they have to use the multi-tap method to enter the "3825-word," or that customers trying to type "dual" will get offended when that "other" word pops onto their screen as a possible choice.

I don't look at this as the type of aggressive censorship we see when someone tries to impose their own morality on someone else. It's a business decision based on the knowledge that SOME people would be offended by seeing certain words appear on their screen. That said, though, I think the issue of cultural differences is the more challenging and important one.

Steve Jordan
07-16-2006, 01:26 PM
If you give users the option of adding AND removing words from their database, users can control what they say. Make it clear in the instructions that it is up to the customer to make those decisions. No outside censorship is required. How hard is that?

Phoenix
07-16-2006, 07:05 PM
Excuse me, but are we debating whether free speech should be censored? Or are we just trying to figure out ways of slicing cusswords out of text messages?

To the first question, yes. That's part of what's being discussed.

To the second question, not exactly. We have discussed the idea of leaving the most vulgar of terms out of the default databases of input software. But what people write in their own text messages is their business, which is something altogether different.

If you give users the option of adding AND removing words from their database, users can control what they say. Make it clear in the instructions that it is up to the customer to make those decisions. No outside censorship is required. How hard is that?

Since you're bringing this up again, I'd agree. I think we're probably mostly in agreement. But there's no need for words like the "F" word to be in any software database by default. Most people are offended by language like that. If you need the most offensive of terms, I say, add them yourself and leave the rest of us in peace. How hard is that?

Steve Jordan
07-17-2006, 01:24 AM
Actually, I'm okay with exactly that. But who decides what's vulgar? If a business wants to leave out the "F" word, there won't be too many people who'll argue with their reasoning. The "F" word might be an easy call, but they're not all that easy (and no, I'm not going to list examples).

A thread in another discussion group has been debating MySpace, and viewability. The specific subject was the old cartoon "Coal Black," which some of you might know has been banned from American viewing because of content that is considered by many to be racist. However racist it may be, there are plenty of people who would rather be allowed to see the cartoon, because it is considered a valuable example of historical attitudes and cultures of the day, presented in a satirical context. One commenter remarked that "you can't learn from the past, if you don't know it."

Keeping "Coal Black" from viewing, i.e., censoring it, can be said to be denying people valuable information and lessons about their culture's history. It prevents people from expressing their ideas. That's the kind of thing that censorship threatens. Removing even the "F" word from a database potentially limits someone their ability to express ideas (I say potentially, because it can still be added).

In this case, I'd rather err on the side of free speech, leave all the words in, and allow users to remove the ones they don't want.

Of course, I don't run a business selling T9. And in this case, free speech clearly indicates that they are free to do what they want... take it out, leave it in (probably an awkward analogy considering the word being discussed), substitute it for "Rosebud," whatever.

And we're free to not use it if we don't want to, or buy someone else's software. Which brings me back to why this is being debated in the first place.

(Self-edit: You know, I feel like I'm maybe going over the top here, so I'm gonna back off now. I don't want it to sound like I want everyone to use the "F" word every 2 sentences. But one man's vulgar is another man's eloquence, and as a writer, I have to respect that. That's the society we live in, and I'm good with it. And I don't even use T9! So, I'm sheathing my sword now.)

Phoenix
07-20-2006, 11:07 PM
Actually, I'm okay with exactly that. But who decides what's vulgar?

Hopefully, those people with a stong understanding of moral decency and proper social limits. Not everything in life is OK. And in lieu of that, the vast majority, but of course, there won't be a vote.

I mean no offense to you, but people always ask that question as a way to avoid accountability so they can justify whatever they want to justify. As if these decisions are too difficult for men to make and not a single person on the earth is worthy or capable enough or has any right to make them. And that's just ridiculous.

Not everyone understands these issues with the same degree of acumen, just as not all men have the mind to comprehend quantum physics or create an artistic masterpiece. Like in anything, society needs leaders. This would be no exception. I'd say if anyone can't understand or accept this reality, then they live in ignorance.

I say this because even those who use foul language everyday of their lives know better and won't use it around certain people or in certain places, which suggests that as the greatest purveyors of all foulness of language, even they know it's wrong. So how much more should the rest of us understand this? These people know that its foul, which is why they use it to begin with. We all have this sense built inside of us. But over time, as they adopt it more and more into their daily discourse, their sense of decency grows dim and they become less astute to the refinements and responsibilities of speech.


If a business wants to leave out the "F" word, there won't be too many people who'll argue with their reasoning. The "F" word might be an easy call, but they're not all that easy (and no, I'm not going to list examples).

Exactly. There are certain vulgar terms like the one you mentioned that have only one meaning and that NO one would argue with and would instantly recognize as completely inappropriate. Apart from words like "bloody" that can have more than one meaning (an example that I touched on earlier in this thread), as a general rule, if you can't say it to your grandmother's face, then it shouldn't be in these databases by default.


A thread in another discussion group has been debating MySpace, and viewability. The specific subject was the old cartoon "Coal Black," which some of you might know has been banned from American viewing because of content that is considered by many to be racist. However racist it may be, there are plenty of people who would rather be allowed to see the cartoon, because it is considered a valuable example of historical attitudes and cultures of the day, presented in a satirical context. One commenter remarked that "you can't learn from the past, if you don't know it."

Keeping "Coal Black" from viewing, i.e., censoring it, can be said to be denying people valuable information and lessons about their culture's history. It prevents people from expressing their ideas. That's the kind of thing that censorship threatens. Removing even the "F" word from a database potentially limits someone their ability to express ideas (I say potentially, because it can still be added).

I'd suggest you're off on a bit of a tangent with this. What you're bringing up here pertains to attitudes and behaviors in regard to racial and social equality, and as an example, is overkill and does not pertain to what we're discussing here. What you and I are speaking about is whether the "F" word and similar terms should be found, by default, in these input databases.

Not to mention, you're suggesting it's been argued that if this cartoon isn't available, then few or perhaps no one would have access to it or may not know about it. But in contrast, do you think that any man, woman, or child can live more than a week in this world and not come across vulgar language? We could pull it from every database and slang dictionary in the world and you would still be aware of them all. Certain movies, music, and literature, and certain places on the internet and in social life will make sure of that. But just like porn, just because it's in so many places, doesn't make it appropriate or necessary.

I'd love to debate more about this cartoon and so on, but this isn't the thread to go any further into that, so I'll refrain.


In this case, I'd rather err on the side of free speech, leave all the words in, and allow users to remove the ones they don't want.

Well, this contradicts what you said first up above, which was that you were OK with banning these words.

But why would you think that free speech would be impaired by banning vulgar terms from this software? Again, this is a misnomer. By banning the most crass of terms, we're merely ensuring that most people won't be offended when using this software. That has nothing to do with removing freedom of speech. Besides, just because vulgar terms may not be in this software, doesn't mean that freedom is impaired, especially when anyone could simply add it or type out whatever they want.

I think we have enough of this crap language in enough places. Do we need it to infiltrate every crack and crevice of our speech? How about trying to teach people to use their brains a bit more? Some people may think that these words do nothing, but the more people see this crap language, the more we're just training and numbing people into thinking that they no longer need to be creative and lucid in their speech, but should just resort to these "alternatives". Why is it that so many people feel the need to resort to every disgusting phrase to get their point across? They must feel they're not being heard, and so to be heard, profanity and crude language are the keys. They'll certainly get attention, just like throwing a rock through a window, but these words will close ears more than anything and ultimately lose peoples' respect - even of those who use it themselves.

It's just not necessary and doesn't belong in this software. Period.


...And we're free to not use it if we don't want to, or buy someone else's software...

Of course. As is always the case. But this is also a business, not a freedom of speech rally, and the software is a tool that many businesses use, as well as people of all ages, including children in classrooms. And it's better for any business to err on the side of caution and sense.

Like I mentioned before, the path to least resistance is key here. Leaving these terms out will not offend anyone (even the ones who use them, especially when anything could be added), but including them will offend most. Having to scour through the database to delete who knows how many vulgar terms would be like having to clean your own hotel room yourself when you first arrive.

If someone feels they absolutely need the most crass of terms, all logic and sense dictates that it's their burden to add them.


(...I don't want it to sound like I want everyone to use the "F" word every 2 sentences. But one man's vulgar is another man's eloquence, and as a writer, I have to respect that. That's the society we live in, and I'm good with it. And I don't even use T9! So, I'm sheathing my sword now.)

Are you trying to be poetic here?

All kidding aside, vulgar is vulgar. It's never eloquent. Only refined speech is eloquent. And vulgarity isn't refined, anymore than using poop instead of clay to make a sculpture would be.

Many good examples of refined, eloquent speech can be found in classic literature. In current literature, too, but I mention the classics because of how they're respected. Those authors had no trouble getting their points across without vulgarisms. And if they can write entire books of thought without them, then people in general certainly have no need for them in T9.

True, we do indeed live in a society with differences of all manner of thought and action, but it should not, and cannot, mean that men forget the value of boundaries, even in speech. People can communicate effectively without the use of foul language. And I have yet to hear of any "be-a-more-effective-communicator" seminar or teaching where they survey, support, and extol the use of vulgar language. That should tell you something.

Steve Jordan
07-22-2006, 01:52 PM
(Okay, now I gotta unsheathe it again...)

Short list of literature known for using "vulgar" language:

The Scarlet Letter
The Red Badge of Courage
A Farewell to Arms
The Awakening
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
All The Pretty Horses
Moby Dick

If you can successfully argue that all of these books would be better if the vulgar language had been removed from them, or that the writers should have censored themselves, then I suppose we can all remove vulgar language from existence.

What I've been saying is that I can understand a company being too timid to include a vulgar word in their database, out of fear of angering potential purchasers and limiting profits. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do, any more than it's right to censor Melville.

A "vulgar" word can be used in an accurately descriptive way, even if it only describes the thought processes of the character using the word. In addition, hiding a single "vulgar" word does nothing, when groups of "non-vulgar" words can be strung together to create a "vulgar" phrase.

That's why I ask: Where do you draw the line? If the word "nipple" is not considered, in itself, vulgar, but can be used in a passage that describes a vulgar act... should it not, by logical extention, be removed? Then what about words like "ass," "thigh," "lick," "poke," "bondage," "gag," etc, etc? Where do you draw the line?

I say we should not. Like it or not, "vulgar" words are part of the language. They can even have a good, logical and effective reason to be used. That's enough of a reason not to censor them. Otherwise, we're sliding down the slope towards Orwell's "double-plus good," no bad words, no bad phrases, no bad ideas world.

Phoenix
07-24-2006, 08:26 AM
(Okay, now I gotta unsheathe it again...)

Short list of literature known for using "vulgar" language:

The Scarlet Letter
The Red Badge of Courage
A Farewell to Arms
The Awakening
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
All The Pretty Horses
Moby Dick

It doesn't surprise me that you could come up with a few examples of books with a bit of language although most of these books don't have most of the utter foulness I've referred to. And a person could easily find exceptions to the rule. But engaging in a simple a tit for tat isn't the point.

I referred to classic literature to help support the fact that although there are many people who use foul language in their daily lives, it isn't necessary to convey intelligent thought, and isn't necessary to communicate in general. And this, among other things, in turn was part of the larger point that it therefore isn't a pivotal component to the practicality and usefulness of T9 and similar input software, especially considering the fact that someone can still tap out anything manually or add it if they wish.


If you can successfully argue that all of these books would be better if the vulgar language had been removed from them, or that the writers should have censored themselves, then I suppose we can all remove vulgar language from existence.

I suppose so. But this sounds as if you've been arguing with yourself because I don't know why you're touching on this. I wasn't debating about books and censoring writers in general. Please refer to what I said above.

And I'm not trying to enter into a big dialog about critiquing literature in general. I've only confined my comments to discussing the lack of merit of including the most foul of terms in input software.


What I've been saying is that I can understand a company being too timid to include a vulgar word in their database, out of fear of angering potential purchasers and limiting profits. But that doesn't make it the right thing to do, any more than it's right to censor Melville.

Well, I'm pleased to hear that you have the ability to understand why it would be done. And if a company chooses not to include foul terms to avoid "angering potential purchasers and limiting profits", that sounds like the right thing to do to me.

I've noticed that many of your arguments here are shooting way over the bow, or like lighting a candle with a blowtorch, and missing the point completely to where we're not even talking about the same things. Not allowing the "F" word and like terms in input software has nothing to do with censoring Melville or any other author.

Why is this so hard for you to accept? Does avoiding including these words keep someone in particular from using said language in his or her messages if he or she wants? No, it does not. Refer to my example of "path of least resistance" and the other points I made in my previous posts here.


A "vulgar" word can be used in an accurately descriptive way, even if it only describes the thought processes of the character using the word. In addition, hiding a single "vulgar" word does nothing, when groups of "non-vulgar" words can be strung together to create a "vulgar" phrase.

Again, not the point.

And you could take all sorts of phrases and string them together to create a "vulgar" book. But none of this has absolutely anything to do with anything I've ever said.

I'm not talking about censoring peoples' messages or writing in general. I'm saying that foul language isn't a necessary component in input software.


That's why I ask: Where do you draw the line? If the word "nipple" is not considered, in itself, vulgar, but can be used in a passage that describes a vulgar act... should it not, by logical extention, be removed? Then what about words like "ass," "thigh," "lick," "poke," "bondage," "gag," etc, etc? Where do you draw the line?

I'm afraid you may be in need of some lessons in logic.

And although you may want to take things in this direction, you may also want to consider keeping greater focus on the topic of discussion.

Where do you draw the line, you ask? This is where wisdom and accountability come in. Some people have it, and some don't. And only those who possess true wisdom (not just opinions and feelings) as well as acountability to others who also possess true wisdom, are the ones who have the ability to decide the what, where, and when and so on of limits, and then to lead others, even if there are those who don't choose to follow.

Where do you draw the line? People can ask these questions forever. They can also be insincere about wanting to discover the answers. However, there are answers. And if they're too afraid or hard-hearted to find, listen to, and accept the answers, then they'll be caught in a perpetual circle of ignorance and stagnancy.

Where does true wisdom come from? God. All true wisdom belongs to God, therefore only He is the source.


I say we should not. Like it or not, "vulgar" words are part of the language.

Vulgarities are a part of life, yes, but this doesn't justify a necessity or their use. Every bad or evil thing under the sun is a part of life, too.


They can even have a good, logical and effective reason to be used. That's enough of a reason not to censor them.

Then we completely disagree. There is nothing good or logical about foul language. It's just ugly and crass, which is why people, even you, refer to it as "vulgar" and "foul". You also mention it's "effective". But in what way and to what degree? So is banging someone on the head with a hammer.

In terms of censoring these terms, again, in this thread I've only been talking about input software and their default databases.


Otherwise, we're sliding down the slope towards Orwell's "double-plus good," no bad words, no bad phrases, no bad ideas world.

This is way over the bow as well. Keeping filth out of T9 is absolutely not Orwellian and has nothing to do with I've been talking about here. Limits in life are necessary and healthy, though, even if you don't think they are.

And based on everything you've said here and how off topic you've taken everything, it doesn't seem to me that you're merely trying to justify the presence of foul terms in T9, but that you may be trying to justify your own use of these terms in your own writing, and I'm not trying to critque that.

Janak Parekh
07-24-2006, 11:30 PM
Where do you draw the line, you ask? This is where wisdom and accountability come in. Some people have it, and some don't. And only those who possess true wisdom (not just opinions and feelings) as well as acountability to others who also possess true wisdom, are the ones who have the ability to decide the what, where, and when and so on of limits, and then to lead others, even if there are those who don't choose to follow.
I'm sorry, but this is your opinion. You may believe in absolute moralities (and, of course, are entitled to them), but I don't see it as nearly a simple problem. I think Steve raised an excellent point. There exists discourse today where using well-defined rational discourse terms like -- for instance -- "liberal" is even considered (and used as) a vulgar insult, euphemisms notwithstanding. Language evolves over time, and interpretations vary based on the community you've been raised in. You point these out as exceptions, but if you take the union of vulgar words in every community, you're going to throw out a significant number of words -- even if it's just for a T9 word list.

Where does true wisdom come from? God. All true wisdom belongs to God, therefore only He is the source.
Please, let's keep any religious discussion out of this forum. Thanks.

--janak

Phoenix
07-25-2006, 07:03 AM
I'm sorry, but this is your opinion. You may believe in absolute moralities (and, of course, are entitled to them), but I don't see it as nearly a simple problem. I think Steve raised an excellent point. There exists discourse today where using well-defined rational discourse terms like -- for instance -- "liberal" is even considered (and used as) a vulgar insult, euphemisms notwithstanding. Language evolves over time, and interpretations vary based on the community you've been raised in. You point these out as exceptions, but if you take the union of vulgar words in every community, you're going to throw out a significant number of words -- even if it's just for a T9 word list.

Yes, of course I have opinions, but that isn't to say that everything a person believes is never based on facts, Janak. Likewise, you have your opinions as well. I merely share what I believe (and no one should assume that they have me all figured out from a few posts or one short excerpt), but it sounds as if you may also think I'm trying to shove something down someone's throat, and that's not what I'm doing, anymore than Steve is. We all know a discussion board is also for debating our views and we all get to present those views.

I also hear what you're saying, Janak, and I have no problem with someone disagreeing with me, but you're missing my point entirely. It doesn't have to be as complicated at you're pointing it out to be.


Please, let's keep any religious discussion out of this forum. Thanks.

I wasn't trying to get into a big religious discussion. He raised a question of moral boundaries and I merely attempted to answer it according to what I thought.

Janak Parekh
07-26-2006, 08:09 PM
Yes, of course I have opinions, but that isn't to say that everything a person believes is never based on facts, Janak.
Well, the separation of facts and opinions is not always clear, and sometimes relies on beliefs, especially when religious discussion enters the picture (e.g., "God exists").

Thanks for your civil response. As long as the discourse remains in such a tone I have no problem with it, but do realize some of your posts are going to engender responses that don't fully agree with your assertions (such as mine).

--janak