Policing profanity

With all the debate about stopping the vulgarity this year at Lynah, I thought this was interesting. [sports.espn.go.com]

[q]"I think there is a misconception that intensity at basketball games is correlated with profanity," said senior David Krieger, who is involved in the effort.[/q]

When did this perception start in Lynah, or was it always that way? It seems that today the most admired fans are the ones who swear or make lewd comments...

[Q]Tub(a) Wrote:

"I think there is a misconception that intensity at basketball games is correlated with profanity," said senior David Krieger, who is involved in the effort.

When did this perception start in Lynah, or was it always that way? It seems that today the most admired fans are the ones who swear or make lewd comments... [/Q]

This is precisely what I think is wrong with the pro-cursing (for lack of a better word) contingent's argument. Granted, I'm no fan of censorship at all, but it seems that it's generally assumed that enthusiastic cheering goes hand-in-hand with vulgar language. Of course, I don't consider "suck" to be vulgar.

[Q]Will Wrote:

This is precisely what I think is wrong with the pro-cursing (for lack of a better word) contingent's argument. Granted, I'm no fan of censorship at all, but it seems that it's generally assumed that enthusiastic cheering goes hand-in-hand with vulgar language. Of course, I don't consider "suck" to be vulgar.
[/Q]

I assume then that you don't think swallow is vulgar either.

[Q]Will wrote:

This is precisely what I think is wrong with the pro-cursing (for lack of a better word) contingent's argument. Granted, I'm no fan of censorship at all, but it seems that it's generally assumed that enthusiastic cheering goes hand-in-hand with vulgar language. Of course, I don't consider "suck" to be vulgar.[/Q]I couldn't agree more! One only has to look at my signature to see that enthusiastic cheering, and cheering that has an impact, does not have to be vulgar.

The Boston Globe did not write that because we were vulgar, but rather that we were intense. Which would you rather be?

It is possible to be intense AND vulgar. One should not rule out an intense cheer just because it is vulgar.
Though no cheer is intense solely based on its vulgarity, I will not rule one out that makes the timbers tremble or gets into an opposing goaltender's head just because it offends some.

Vulgarity will not get Cornell to the places where they can make the steel girders tremble (i.e.: the giant rinks of the regionals and Frozen Fours). Sucks and swallows are words that have a normal meaning and a vulgar meaning. Then there are other words that have no other interpretation except a vulgar one. I've mentioned the mob mentatility before - you're one in a large passionate crowd - who's going to know (except maybe the usher lipreading 50 feet away) if you're cursing if everybody else is. Now you're just with a handful of fans and you start cursing at the opposing team - boy you stick out like a sore thumb. Sporting events are passionate events. Coaches are cursing. Players are cursing. If you're close enough to them, you can hear it or read it on their lips.

BTW, for the lawyer types out there, is lip reading admissible in court? Can you start mouthing obscenities without making a sound and get in trouble? I remember some people have been tossed from Lynah because ushers read their lips - but what if no noise was actually coming out. If a tree falls in a forest and somebody saw it fall but didn't hear it hit the ground, did it really fall?