Please explain the difference between 'look at the fucking snow' and 'look at the freaking snow' other than that you can say one on t.v. and not the other. I'm not looking for how each makes you feel, either, as your feelings are irrelevant to the fundamental meaning of the sentence, considering that your feelings may not be shared by others. I'm looking for a concrete, logical difference.
Apologies. Clinton's tax increase was only 'very large' as opposed to 'the largest to that point'. That correction, however, in NO WAY invalidates my point that republicans and democrats act similarly. Still, a $32billion tax increase, while not the largest to that point ($37billion in adjusted dollars) is still a giant tax increase. Also please note that I did state that bush the elder also increased taxes and spending massively. I'm not trying to be partisian here.
It's different because it's vulgar and it's vulgar because it's different? Makes perfect sense.
I love to swear as much as the next guy, but you're overlooking a great deal of the richness of our language if you think swear words are interchangeable with their less offensive brethren.
What seperates the 'swear words' from the 'less offensive bretheren'?
There is a time and a place for both. Let's not pretend otherwise.
But pretending is exactly what we're doing, as a society. We pretend that certain combinations of letters are somehow intrinsically bad. What is the logical basis for the differences? If there is none, what is the basis, then? And I don't see why it's "dumb" to say that synonyms are equivalent. That's what makes them synonyms, isn't it?
It's harmful because it's arbitrary and it teaches poor critical thinking skills. There is no reason for why the particular words which society labels 'unacceptable' are so labelled. If there was logic behind it I wouldn't think it harmful. If the CONCEPTS were labelled bad I would understand it. But they are not. It is perfectly acceptable to express an idea using certain words, but unacceptable to express it with 'bad' words. That is nonsensical and that is why I believe it to be harmful.
Fair enough. What you said represents a logical, reasoned position. That is something which none of the fanatical 'anti-cussing' people can seem to provide.
Quite true. The flaw in your logic is quite simply that for most people "shit" is not equivalent to "poo". The two words have different semantic ranges, and while both of them include "faeces" as a core meaning, it is nonsensical to suggest that the English language has somehow managed to accumulate such massive redundancy that we have dozens of words that are totally interchangeable.
They are equivalent enough to be synonyms. From Dictionary.com:
Synonym 1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as joyful, elated, glad. 2. a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity; metonym.
If it were just nuance that made words bad, then there would be more than ONE 'bad' word per concept. What I am against is the arbitrariness that makes ONE way of expressing a concept "bad" simply because of the choice of letters used to spell the word which indicates that concept. Therefore, I understand your point but I think you're getting WAYYYYYYYY too into particulars here, and you still haven't provided anything to differentiate one synonym from another in such a way that one should be proscribed while another should not.
Welcome to society where we learn from a young age how to interact with each other.
Are you honestly saying that following a learned behavior is bad? When you say that you are "a victim" of your learning it sounds like you are. The alternatives to learned behavior is either knowing everything you know from the start of your existence, or acting on pure instincts. Either way if you are saying you are not a "victim" of learned behaviors then you would be a very interesting case study.
Are you honestly saying that all learned behaviour is good? In this case, I believe that the particular example I gave of learned behaviour IS bad. Not in every case. I said 'a victim' because in this case, I believe learned behaviour to be harmful. Please note that this does not mean that I think all learned behaviour is bad, nor did I expect anyone to come to that conclusion.
I'm not saying that the meaning is exactly the same. It depends on your level of precision. 1.1 != 1 unless you're only expressing it to the nearest whole number. Think of it this way: "shit" = 1.0000000. "crap" = 1.0001. At the level of granularity that makes most sense for the discussion, they are equivalent. If you go deeper, they are different. This is just a rough description since I didn't expect anyone (especially someone so attuned to nuance) to miss this point. I'm just saying that it makes no sense at all to take a concept with 500 ways of expressing said concept and then say that ONE of those ways is unacceptable. Please provide me with an explanation for this and I'll concede the point. We have a ton of differently-nuanced words for "no", but we don't arbitrarily label one of them 'bad'. Why not? There are plenty of different ways of saying 'mad' or 'happy' or 'rain' but none of them are labelled 'bad'. Why not? Who chose which concepts would have 'bad' synonyms and which of those synonyms would be 'bad'? What, exactly, differentiates the 'bad' word from the acceptable versions? I really don't see why I'm getting personally attacked for this. Why would you conclude that I can't appreciate poetry? I must be a moron because I enojy logic and reason? Or logical, reasonable people aren't capable of understanding poetry? What?
I would agree with the following caveat: if someone is sending you private messages that you don't wish to receive and cannot turn off, fine. If it's a public channel, then you have just as much right to say what you want on it as anyone else. There is almost always an/ignore command that works for all channels, thus giving you an out. Therefore I think your anaolgy is misapplied here.
I'll just mention that the easy way out: God designed everything in such a way as to make all that happen. As soon as you posit a creator, that's entirely his fault.
Well, in a way, sure. It's a catch-22. Would we prefer to be totally controlled, having no choices? Or would we prefer to have free will, which apparently leads to our downfall?
Not *force*. Even a suggestion is enough. There are plenty of others though. The Bible advocates stoning for a vast array of "crimes", few of which could be considered a crime in anything approaching a free society (blagh blagh all disclaimers about the silliness of trying to call the US a free society).
Well, those punishments are meant for Jews living in Jewish communities. I don't think they were meant to apply to any society. If you don't want to live under those rules, move to Babylon.:) But yeah, I do understand what you're saying and I don't think we're really that far apart. I just think people try to take MANY things from the Bible out of context, because they don't want to put the time and effort in to understanding that context. Seems like most people prefer to get their information from guys with helmet hair, used-car-salesman smiles, and cadillacs.
But you repeat yourself;-)
For emphasis:) Jehova's Witnesses haven't been around my block for years, but those dang MorMons won't leave me alone. I try to tell them that I will never, ever, believe what they do....but they just don't listen. If you're a mormon and you're not like that, then you're excused.
As for the last paragraph, very true. I've never understood the justification for laws period with no religious source of some sort. Either there are fundamental laws handed down by a higher power, or there is the law of nature. I don't know where people get the idea that moral codes can be evolved without some sort of higher power. I mean, sure, you could develop a PERSONAL moral code withour resorting to a supreme lawgiver, but how can you make the case that your code should apply to anyone else? Anyway, that's way off-topic. I will say though that I have truly enjoyed our discussion ITT. Thank you!
Can you please point out to me what distinguishes the 'good'-nuanced words from the 'bad'-nuanced ones? I'm not rejecting your assertion that nuance is important, I'm rejecting the theory that some words are 'bad' when they have 'non-bad' equivalents. I agree with you that certain connotations are more important in certain situations. However, that doesn't explain why words with extremely similar connotations ("crap" and "shit", for example) aren't similarly viewed by society. Who decided which words are 'bad' and which ones are 'acceptable'? What was the criteria? My premise is fine. As to why not just use 'poo' all the time, I would have no problem with that. I didn't bring my personal choices into the discussion because I don't see why they're relevant. We aren't talking about my habits, after all, we're talking about societal conventions.
We have to spend cycles worrying about childish behaviour on the internet? Last I checked, we* were in a war, poverty is killing people in "the greatest country in the world", oppression is rampant throughout much of the world...but hey, fuck all that. Let's worry about the language people in a FUCKING GAME use. Sounds more important to me.
*yes, I'm from the U.S. If you aren't, replace "we were" with "America is" and go on about your day. Thanks.
I would agree with you if it were concepts we were discussing here. However, it isn't the concepts that people object to. It's the words themselves. Every 'bad' word has several if not many socially acceptable analogues. How do you explain this?
I'm just curious here: would your reaction have been the same if they used 'darn' or 'golly' (or 'blankety' or 'ted' or 'um') instead of whatever they used? If you answered 'yes', then your point holds up. If you answered 'no', then you're a victim of learned behaviour. Not trying to be critical, but it is EXTREMELY difficult to change your perspective enough to see unconsciously learned behaviour.
Wow. I bet you'd stand in line all night to interview for a job with the thought police. How would you feel if the positions were reversed? Would you like to be locked out of all games your favorite publisher makes for NOT using "profanity"? I doubt it. People seem to be quick to support suppresion of behaviour and speech they don't personally use. You cannot have the right to express your opinions if you deny that right to others. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Note that I am not encouraging you not to have or express any opinions. I'm just ridiculing you for them.
Thanks:) I replied to you because you were the only voice of reason I saw ITT. I've been saying this for years, and for some reason (learned social behaviour is my guess) not many people seem to get it. Mostly, I get responses along the lines of, "Yeah, well....those words are just bad. You just have to accept it." To which I reply, "No."
General rule: if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Therefore: If 'poo' isn't offensive to you, and 'shit' is equivalent to 'poo', then 'shit' should not be offensive to you. There is no inherent property in words which makes them 'bad'. If there is a euphamism or generally accepted substitute for the 'bad word', then it is not really bad. Check your premise, 'offended' people.
Well, I'm not sure I follow. Even though "win95" technically came out in '95, win 3.1 (and WFW) was still the prevalent OS, especially in commercial land. Also, Win3.x had been out for several years prior to '96. It seems to me that that does not lessen the case for copying at all. It just lessens the case for the copying being a Win95 ripoff and strengthens the case for it being a win 3.x ripoff. at least that's how it seems to me.:) Whether '95 had them or not, I feel that the ripoff was either consciously (my belief) or unconsciously (i'd probably accept this) based on win 3.x.
Certainly, but a lot of that is God himself killing them if the Left Behind interpretations have any merit.
Not actually. Many would be killed in the tribulations, but the majority will be killed by the government. Of course, that follows the pattern of normal human history as well. It will be the war to end all wars and refusal to take the mark that kill most people, though. Many of the tribulations are designed to make people unbearably miserable rather than kill them. At least, if I'm reading the book of revelation right.
Well it's both against their source and absolutely required by it. One example out of many:
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
This is a bad example. Read it a little more closely. They're not advocating killing people who believe differently, they're advocating killing people who attempt to force through whatever means people to abandon their faith. If you were to have your beliefs and not try to push them on others, you'd be safe. (I'm looking at YOU, Mormons & LDSs) It's not like it says to kill people just for believing differently. Although the god of the Bible does reserve the right to do just that, He doesn't extend that right to us on a normal basis.
Ok, so let us assume that only a thousand people show up at the polls and vote. Someone wins, obviously. You have expressed your opinion by not voting. This means what to the winning candidate and his supporters? What about the losing party? Hint: They don't care why you didn't vote.
Again. I will say this again. Apparently I have to say it over and over. They require your help to legitimize the system. If very few people participate, the average person will eventually question the wisdom of letting such a small portion of the population make such large decisions. At some point, change will be demanded. You may not agree that this will happen. However, stop pretending like the possibility doesn't even exist. You have not provided any evidence that this is so. However, history is FULL of occasions when people got fed up of a tiny minority making all the decisions for them. Why do you think it can't happen here?
Here's a famous quote for you:
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke"
What you are doing here is the dishonest tactic of equating 'not voting' with 'doing nothing'. You have no idea what I have or have not done, yet you speak as though you are an authority. How do you know what I have or have not done?
You claimed in another portion of this thread that, "I haven't voted for evil since I became aware of the problem." (19160695) Good to know. But you haven't done anything have you? You freely admit that by doing nothing the system will get worse. In fact, you seem to be promoting the acceleration of its corruption. I'd call that evil. It's just passive evil.
More of the same. I am certainly not advocating 'doing nothing', which should be evident in spades from this thread. I am promoting NOT VOTING in national elections. I am not saying, "Stay home and never leave and do absolutely nothing." However, if I took that position it would make your argument easy, so you assign that position to me with no basis upon which to do so. That is a dishonest tactic. Can you try to convince me that voting in national elections is worthwhile without resorting to ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and begging questions? I seriously doubt it.
He lied under oath. You may not agree with the process that put him there, you may not think he should have been asked that question. However, he lied in response to at least one direct question while under oath. That's perjury. Also, he asked for the definition of the word 'is' which makes me want to gouge his eyes out.
Slashdot Mirror
Please explain the difference between 'look at the fucking snow' and 'look at the freaking snow' other than that you can say one on t.v. and not the other. I'm not looking for how each makes you feel, either, as your feelings are irrelevant to the fundamental meaning of the sentence, considering that your feelings may not be shared by others. I'm looking for a concrete, logical difference.
Apologies. Clinton's tax increase was only 'very large' as opposed to 'the largest to that point'. That correction, however, in NO WAY invalidates my point that republicans and democrats act similarly. Still, a $32billion tax increase, while not the largest to that point ($37billion in adjusted dollars) is still a giant tax increase. Also please note that I did state that bush the elder also increased taxes and spending massively. I'm not trying to be partisian here.
"Shit" is more vulgar.
Why?
It's vulgarity is what makes it different!
It's different because it's vulgar and it's vulgar because it's different? Makes perfect sense.
I love to swear as much as the next guy, but you're overlooking a great deal of the richness of our language if you think swear words are interchangeable with their less offensive brethren.
What seperates the 'swear words' from the 'less offensive bretheren'?
There is a time and a place for both. Let's not pretend otherwise.
But pretending is exactly what we're doing, as a society. We pretend that certain combinations of letters are somehow intrinsically bad. What is the logical basis for the differences? If there is none, what is the basis, then? And I don't see why it's "dumb" to say that synonyms are equivalent. That's what makes them synonyms, isn't it?
It's harmful because it's arbitrary and it teaches poor critical thinking skills. There is no reason for why the particular words which society labels 'unacceptable' are so labelled. If there was logic behind it I wouldn't think it harmful. If the CONCEPTS were labelled bad I would understand it. But they are not. It is perfectly acceptable to express an idea using certain words, but unacceptable to express it with 'bad' words. That is nonsensical and that is why I believe it to be harmful.
Fair enough. What you said represents a logical, reasoned position. That is something which none of the fanatical 'anti-cussing' people can seem to provide.
Quite true. The flaw in your logic is quite simply that for most people "shit" is not equivalent to "poo". The two words have different semantic ranges, and while both of them include "faeces" as a core meaning, it is nonsensical to suggest that the English language has somehow managed to accumulate such massive redundancy that we have dozens of words that are totally interchangeable.
They are equivalent enough to be synonyms.
From Dictionary.com:
Synonym
1. a word having the same or nearly the same meaning as another in the language, as joyful, elated, glad.
2. a word or expression accepted as another name for something, as Arcadia for pastoral simplicity; metonym.
If it were just nuance that made words bad, then there would be more than ONE 'bad' word per concept. What I am against is the arbitrariness that makes ONE way of expressing a concept "bad" simply because of the choice of letters used to spell the word which indicates that concept. Therefore, I understand your point but I think you're getting WAYYYYYYYY too into particulars here, and you still haven't provided anything to differentiate one synonym from another in such a way that one should be proscribed while another should not.
Welcome to society where we learn from a young age how to interact with each other.
Are you honestly saying that following a learned behavior is bad? When you say that you are "a victim" of your learning it sounds like you are. The alternatives to learned behavior is either knowing everything you know from the start of your existence, or acting on pure instincts. Either way if you are saying you are not a "victim" of learned behaviors then you would be a very interesting case study.
Are you honestly saying that all learned behaviour is good?
In this case, I believe that the particular example I gave of learned behaviour IS bad. Not in every case. I said 'a victim' because in this case, I believe learned behaviour to be harmful. Please note that this does not mean that I think all learned behaviour is bad, nor did I expect anyone to come to that conclusion.
I'm not saying that the meaning is exactly the same. It depends on your level of precision. 1.1 != 1 unless you're only expressing it to the nearest whole number. Think of it this way: "shit" = 1.0000000. "crap" = 1.0001. At the level of granularity that makes most sense for the discussion, they are equivalent. If you go deeper, they are different. This is just a rough description since I didn't expect anyone (especially someone so attuned to nuance) to miss this point.
I'm just saying that it makes no sense at all to take a concept with 500 ways of expressing said concept and then say that ONE of those ways is unacceptable.
Please provide me with an explanation for this and I'll concede the point. We have a ton of differently-nuanced words for "no", but we don't arbitrarily label one of them 'bad'. Why not? There are plenty of different ways of saying 'mad' or 'happy' or 'rain' but none of them are labelled 'bad'. Why not? Who chose which concepts would have 'bad' synonyms and which of those synonyms would be 'bad'? What, exactly, differentiates the 'bad' word from the acceptable versions?
I really don't see why I'm getting personally attacked for this. Why would you conclude that I can't appreciate poetry? I must be a moron because I enojy logic and reason? Or logical, reasonable people aren't capable of understanding poetry? What?
I would agree with the following caveat: if someone is sending you private messages that you don't wish to receive and cannot turn off, fine. If it's a public channel, then you have just as much right to say what you want on it as anyone else. There is almost always an /ignore command that works for all channels, thus giving you an out. Therefore I think your anaolgy is misapplied here.
I'll just mention that the easy way out: God designed everything in such a way as to make all that happen. As soon as you posit a creator, that's entirely his fault.
:)
;-)
:) Jehova's Witnesses haven't been around my block for years, but those dang MorMons won't leave me alone. I try to tell them that I will never, ever, believe what they do....but they just don't listen. If you're a mormon and you're not like that, then you're excused.
Well, in a way, sure. It's a catch-22. Would we prefer to be totally controlled, having no choices? Or would we prefer to have free will, which apparently leads to our downfall?
Not *force*. Even a suggestion is enough. There are plenty of others though. The Bible advocates stoning for a vast array of "crimes", few of which could be considered a crime in anything approaching a free society (blagh blagh all disclaimers about the silliness of trying to call the US a free society).
Well, those punishments are meant for Jews living in Jewish communities. I don't think they were meant to apply to any society. If you don't want to live under those rules, move to Babylon.
But yeah, I do understand what you're saying and I don't think we're really that far apart. I just think people try to take MANY things from the Bible out of context, because they don't want to put the time and effort in to understanding that context. Seems like most people prefer to get their information from guys with helmet hair, used-car-salesman smiles, and cadillacs.
But you repeat yourself
For emphasis
As for the last paragraph, very true. I've never understood the justification for laws period with no religious source of some sort. Either there are fundamental laws handed down by a higher power, or there is the law of nature. I don't know where people get the idea that moral codes can be evolved without some sort of higher power. I mean, sure, you could develop a PERSONAL moral code withour resorting to a supreme lawgiver, but how can you make the case that your code should apply to anyone else? Anyway, that's way off-topic. I will say though that I have truly enjoyed our discussion ITT. Thank you!
Can you please point out to me what distinguishes the 'good'-nuanced words from the 'bad'-nuanced ones? I'm not rejecting your assertion that nuance is important, I'm rejecting the theory that some words are 'bad' when they have 'non-bad' equivalents. I agree with you that certain connotations are more important in certain situations. However, that doesn't explain why words with extremely similar connotations ("crap" and "shit", for example) aren't similarly viewed by society. Who decided which words are 'bad' and which ones are 'acceptable'? What was the criteria? My premise is fine. As to why not just use 'poo' all the time, I would have no problem with that. I didn't bring my personal choices into the discussion because I don't see why they're relevant. We aren't talking about my habits, after all, we're talking about societal conventions.
We have to spend cycles worrying about childish behaviour on the internet? Last I checked, we* were in a war, poverty is killing people in "the greatest country in the world", oppression is rampant throughout much of the world...but hey, fuck all that. Let's worry about the language people in a FUCKING GAME use. Sounds more important to me.
*yes, I'm from the U.S. If you aren't, replace "we were" with "America is" and go on about your day. Thanks.
I would agree with you if it were concepts we were discussing here. However, it isn't the concepts that people object to. It's the words themselves. Every 'bad' word has several if not many socially acceptable analogues. How do you explain this?
I'm just curious here: would your reaction have been the same if they used 'darn' or 'golly' (or 'blankety' or 'ted' or 'um') instead of whatever they used? If you answered 'yes', then your point holds up. If you answered 'no', then you're a victim of learned behaviour. Not trying to be critical, but it is EXTREMELY difficult to change your perspective enough to see unconsciously learned behaviour.
Wow. I bet you'd stand in line all night to interview for a job with the thought police. How would you feel if the positions were reversed? Would you like to be locked out of all games your favorite publisher makes for NOT using "profanity"? I doubt it. People seem to be quick to support suppresion of behaviour and speech they don't personally use. You cannot have the right to express your opinions if you deny that right to others. "I may not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Note that I am not encouraging you not to have or express any opinions. I'm just ridiculing you for them.
Thanks :) I replied to you because you were the only voice of reason I saw ITT. I've been saying this for years, and for some reason (learned social behaviour is my guess) not many people seem to get it. Mostly, I get responses along the lines of, "Yeah, well....those words are just bad. You just have to accept it." To which I reply, "No."
wow, 10gig a month? what, do you like just check email or something? That's insane. I thought transfer quotas went out of fashion with swing music.
broadband isn't broadband unless its at least 2Mbps
broadband isn't broadband unless it's at least 2Mbps
General rule: if a=b and b=c, then a=c. Therefore: If 'poo' isn't offensive to you, and 'shit' is equivalent to 'poo', then 'shit' should not be offensive to you. There is no inherent property in words which makes them 'bad'. If there is a euphamism or generally accepted substitute for the 'bad word', then it is not really bad. Check your premise, 'offended' people.
Well, I'm not sure I follow. Even though "win95" technically came out in '95, win 3.1 (and WFW) was still the prevalent OS, especially in commercial land. Also, Win3.x had been out for several years prior to '96. It seems to me that that does not lessen the case for copying at all. It just lessens the case for the copying being a Win95 ripoff and strengthens the case for it being a win 3.x ripoff. at least that's how it seems to me. :) Whether '95 had them or not, I feel that the ripoff was either consciously (my belief) or unconsciously (i'd probably accept this) based on win 3.x.
I think 3.11 was the last one that had it, but don't quote me on that :)
Certainly, but a lot of that is God himself killing them if the Left Behind interpretations have any merit.
Not actually. Many would be killed in the tribulations, but the majority will be killed by the government. Of course, that follows the pattern of normal human history as well. It will be the war to end all wars and refusal to take the mark that kill most people, though. Many of the tribulations are designed to make people unbearably miserable rather than kill them. At least, if I'm reading the book of revelation right.
Well it's both against their source and absolutely required by it. One example out of many:
Deuteronomy 13:6-10
This is a bad example. Read it a little more closely. They're not advocating killing people who believe differently, they're advocating killing people who attempt to force through whatever means people to abandon their faith. If you were to have your beliefs and not try to push them on others, you'd be safe. (I'm looking at YOU, Mormons & LDSs) It's not like it says to kill people just for believing differently. Although the god of the Bible does reserve the right to do just that, He doesn't extend that right to us on a normal basis.
Ok, so let us assume that only a thousand people show up at the polls and vote. Someone wins, obviously. You have expressed your opinion by not voting. This means what to the winning candidate and his supporters? What about the losing party? Hint: They don't care why you didn't vote.
Again. I will say this again. Apparently I have to say it over and over. They require your help to legitimize the system. If very few people participate, the average person will eventually question the wisdom of letting such a small portion of the population make such large decisions. At some point, change will be demanded. You may not agree that this will happen. However, stop pretending like the possibility doesn't even exist. You have not provided any evidence that this is so. However, history is FULL of occasions when people got fed up of a tiny minority making all the decisions for them. Why do you think it can't happen here?
Here's a famous quote for you:
All that is necessary for evil to succeed is that good men do nothing. -- Edmund Burke"
What you are doing here is the dishonest tactic of equating 'not voting' with 'doing nothing'. You have no idea what I have or have not done, yet you speak as though you are an authority. How do you know what I have or have not done?
You claimed in another portion of this thread that, "I haven't voted for evil since I became aware of the problem." (19160695) Good to know. But you haven't done anything have you? You freely admit that by doing nothing the system will get worse. In fact, you seem to be promoting the acceleration of its corruption. I'd call that evil. It's just passive evil.
More of the same. I am certainly not advocating 'doing nothing', which should be evident in spades from this thread. I am promoting NOT VOTING in national elections. I am not saying, "Stay home and never leave and do absolutely nothing." However, if I took that position it would make your argument easy, so you assign that position to me with no basis upon which to do so. That is a dishonest tactic. Can you try to convince me that voting in national elections is worthwhile without resorting to ad hominem attacks, straw man arguments, and begging questions? I seriously doubt it.
He lied under oath. You may not agree with the process that put him there, you may not think he should have been asked that question. However, he lied in response to at least one direct question while under oath. That's perjury. Also, he asked for the definition of the word 'is' which makes me want to gouge his eyes out.
Yeah...that works better than 'unknown coward'