How should one interpret foul language?

Buz, you said Sometimes a person using these terms does exactly that.I could have said And many, many more. However, the expression I chose doesn't have the same grammatical difficulties at the examples given. I would have got the same meaning across if I had said None of those, however, express the feeling that the instruction given is thought, by the writer, to be more productive than the inane drivel being spouted in the first place.I could have gone all Scottish and said I don't think I'd have been understood by the majority on this board.On the other hand is understood by everyone on the board, says exactly what I wanted to say, in the way I wanted to say it and conjures up such a lovely image. Profanity does have it's place and, as said by someone else, it's a lot cheaper than a psychiatrist. Sometimes the topic of discussion is nothing to do with mechanics, science, food, nutrition and everything to do with personal attacks and these personal attacks, while containing no profanity, are more offensive, more insulting, more foul and more immoral/amoral than the use of profanity. You can manage all of this without using profanity. If the only yardstick you are going to use in determining the above is the use of profanity, then you're going to miss alot of moral, mental, cultural and communal depravity.

A soft answer may indeed turn away wrath, however in the thread in question wrath was not the problem but nasty, vicious, snidy responses to soft answers were. Additionally, when soft answers result in more of the same obnoxious behaviour it can be hard to see the merit in giving soft answers.Additionally it may come as a surprise to you but, guess what? I'm only human, just like every other poster on the board and we all have a point at which we go "ping". I reached mine many posts before I said what I said. My comment was straight, to the point and expressed exactly what I meant it to express in a manner which could not be misunderstood, deliberate misunderstanding being the MO of that particular troll.I will also point out that Jesus didn't restrict himself to a soft answer when he was confronted by a gaggle of money-changers in the temple. He didn't go back and apologise to them either. I think you'll find that most violence has nothing to do with the profanity and everything to do with the namecalling (I'm using only your examples). Insults are insults whether profanity is used or not. Meanspirited communication is meanspirited communication whether it involves the use of profanity or not. For examples of meanspirited communication, see the previous posts in the thread in question. Once you've read that, come back and tell me that my use of profanity was the low point. I don't think you will, since dishonesty, deception, deliberate misrepresentation, malicious mocking and goading lace the posts in question. If you want to see the behaviour that begets anger you need look no further.In real life, those disposed towards violence are more likely to react to behaviours of that sort, since they are not neutral. Profanity is. The words surrounding profanity determine the mood of the communication, not the profanity itself. All that does is emphasis the intended mood.Can yu give examples of wars which have begun over the use of profanity? You see, AFAIK, WWI was about expansion and the invasion of a neutral country (see Von Schlieffen plan), WWII was about expansion and world domination, the Korean War was about fighting based on political ideology, Vietnam was about figting political ideology.....you get the picture? Wouldn't it have been better if all the combatants had, instead of fighting, just yelled "FUCK OFF" to each other and walked away?A soft answer may indeed be good at turning away wrath, it does absolutely nothing (read bugger all if you want to) to turn away an invasion force. You brought up the analogy of violence and war so tell me which wars have started over profanity?