I don't think this sells. It may be true, but the general or periodic use of profanity "for effect" is not effective in general, in my opinion. I've worked with exceptional people all my life. They account for a small percentage of the general scene and for the rest much stiffer get applied -- sooner or later. I use to be a major offender, but one day I got pulled up real short by one of my most valued staff. Today, those using profanity consistently around me soon find themselves working elsewhere, for someone else. I don't need the irritation and in today's corporate environment, there is no need to put hard earned assets at risk by encouraging such behavior.
Otis Wright Doug Franklin wrote: > On Fri, 10 Jan 2003 21:33:36 -0500, T Rittenhouse wrote: > > > The TI sat up half the night with a dictionary reading it. > > Sometimes ones assumptions are incorrect. > > I'm one of those people. Language, including offensive language, is > not just a communication medium. It can also be a tool, ruse, > subterfuge, diversion, or lots of other things. > > My mother used to work with a lawyer. This fellow was from deep in the > hinterlands of Mississippi. He spoke with an Southern country accent > that most people just wouldn't believe unless they heard it. > > In court, he dressed in twenty-five year old polyester double-knit > suits with white ties and white patent leather shoes. Outside court it > was bib overalls and grimy white t-shirts. > > He knew more of the polysyllabic words than 98% of the population, and > _all_ of the four-letter kind. He graduated second in his Harvard Law > class. He had a 100% success rate in court over a forty year career. > > TTYL, DougF KG4LMZ
