Why are you people so sensiative about the "F" word? I mean it?s just a word, words can?t hurt you, right? You call me immature because I had an "out burst". Well I ask which is more immature, what I did which as far as I can tell was have a "outburst" and use "profanity" OR ?. (wait was that an "outburst" ? I mean it was in all caps) call some one immature and joke and poke fun at him. I don?t know, maybe both. I do know that you people are acting like school children on the playground. (I don?t mean to be a hypocrite but I just thought you should know because you might not be aware.) The only thing i?m guilty is saying a few "naughty" words and having an "outburst". Both of which are done by most if not all action stars. (I dare you to go up to Sly Stallone, Jean Clade Van Damn
Arnold, or Steven Segal and call them immature.)
Personally I think the "F" word has a bad rep. What other word can be used as a verb, adj, noun, as basically every type of word, even as every word in a sentence? What other word can describe pain, pleasure, fright, anger, happiness, and a plethora of other emotions? ONLY the "F" word. I say use the "F" word every day, use it?s versatility to spice up your otherwise mundane daily lives.
Besides there are for more offensive words. Take today?s expression "Gadzooks!" for example.
Gadzooks is not particularly offensive to most. Of course, most don't know what
it originally meant. Gadzooks was originally slang for "God's hooks," and was very offensive as it also referred to the crucifixion. An interesting note is that there is a store called Gadzooks which everyone thinks of as a pop-culture vendor to America's youth. Some (but not many) of Gadzooks' shoppers would be very offended if they knew the true meaning of the store's name. Another word from this region is a Cockney expression, "Gorblimey," which is a word used to swear to the truth, and is a shortened form of "God blind me." Also, in England, words such as "bloody," "blimey," "blinkin'," beginning with the letters "BL" are taken offense to because they, once again, refer to the blood of Christ and the crucifixion.
Even people that we think were great used Profanitay, William Shakespeare for example, though it is not widely taught, was not a very clean writer. In fact, he was somewhat of a potty mouth. His works encompassed a lot of things that some people wish he had not. That includes a fair helping of sex, violence, crime, horror, politics, religion, anti-authoritarianism, anti-semitism, racism, xenophobia, sexism, jealousy, profanity, satire, and controversy of all kinds. In his time, religious and moral curses were more offensive than biological curses. Most all original (before being censored) Shakespearean works contain very offensive profanity, mostly religious, which is probably one of many reasons that his works were and are so popular. Because his works contained so many of these profane words or phrases, they were censored to protect the innocent minds of the teenagers who
are required to read them, and also because they were blasphemous and offensive. Almost all of the profanity was removed, and that that was not had just reason for being there.
Perhaps the two worst of these Shakespearean swears were "'zounds" and "'sblood." "'Zounds" had twenty-three occurrences. Ten of them were in 1 Henry IV. The rest appear in Titus (once), Richard III (four times), Romeo and Juliet (twice), and Othello ( six times). Iago and Falstaff were the worst offenders. 'Zounds has evolved into somewhat of a silly and meaningless word, but was originally horribly offensive. This oath, short for "God's wounds," was extremely offensive because references to the wounds or blood of
Christ were thought especially outrageous, as they touched directly on the crucifixion. "'Sblood" had twelve occurrences in all. There were eight times in 1 Henry IV (with Falstaff accounting for six), plus once in Henry V, twice in Hamlet, and once in Othello. 'Sblood occurs less than 'zounds, but is equally offensive and means basically the same thing.
Now that were done with the history lesion there is one more point I would like to bring up, some one had comment about play control and used The Legend of Zelda as an example. I admit I was starting to agree with you UNTIL (sorry for the outburst) they said Zelda was a RPG. Zelda is NOT, I repeat NOT a RPG. The definition if a RPG is any game that tells a story and the main character?s abilities improve throughout out the course of the story. Zelda has no statistics NONE, the closest thing to them would be gaining an extra heart after every dungeon. That would mean that if Zelda is a PRG then the Mega Man games are also RPGs (gains new weapons) as well as Bonks Adventure (gains more ? Hearts)
Any one who has played these games knows there not RPGs, and neither is Zelda
Thank you for reading this thus far and I hope it give you some thing to think about.
Zelda=not a rpg
------------------