Is Hogwash a form of legalism

tv1a · #1 07-04-2007, 06:35 PM

I attempting a dialog with a poster on another thread. His disdain for my views was so evident he used the word HOGWASH more than once. It is evident hogwash is a sanitize substitue word for the waste from male cattle. A legalist says it is okay to say hogwash, but not the other word? What happened to the principle that states every idle word would be accounted for?

Why is it okay for one word and not the other. Hogwash is hardly used in describing the sanitary condition of a future pork chop. Hogwash is almost exclucsivly used as a sanitized swear word.

Is there an unwritten rule legalism that it is okay to clean up a word or phrase and have it mean the same thing as its originial counterpart?

Any pig farmers out there want to squeal in on this one?

Sherri · #2 07-04-2007, 06:59 PM

Well, that's a new one on me. I've never heard this definition of hogwash!!!

ManOfWord · #3 07-04-2007, 07:02 PM

I have never heard "hogwash" given that definition before. I have always, and maybe errantly, thought that hogwash was was the muddy pit that hogs like to wallow in or the water that hoses down their hog runs etc. I have never thought that hogwash meant anything improper.

I think your definition is a bunch of hogwash!

Praxeas · #4 07-04-2007, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tv1a

I attempting a dialog with a poster on another thread. His disdain for my views was so evident he used the word HOGWASH more than once. It is evident hogwash is a sanitize substitue word for the waste from male cattle. A legalist says it is okay to say hogwash, but not the other word? What happened to the principle that states every idle word would be accounted for?

Why is it okay for one word and not the other. Hogwash is hardly used in describing the sanitary condition of a future pork chop. Hogwash is almost exclucsivly used as a sanitized swear word.

Is there an unwritten rule legalism that it is okay to clean up a word or phrase and have it mean the same thing as its originial counterpart?

Any pig farmers out there want to squeal in on this one?

We'd all have to assume the person that said Hogwash was a legalist. In fact to me a real legalist would probably not use the word hogwash either....then again even a non-legalist might choose not to use euphemisms

Sam · #5 07-04-2007, 07:15 PM

Well, shoot!!!!
Horseshoes!!!!
You better watch your mouth or Gosh will darn you to heck.
Cheese and Crackers!!!!!

Barb · #6 07-04-2007, 07:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sherri

Well, that's a new one on me. I've never heard this definition of hogwash!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ManOfWord

I have never heard "hogwash" given that definition before. I have always, and maybe errantly, thought that hogwash was was the muddy pit that hogs like to wallow in or the water that hoses down their hog runs etc. I have never thought that hogwash meant anything improper.

I think your definition is a bunch of hogwash!

Sorry, folks...this is not tv on the rampage, and here's my story...

I haven't done it in a while, but I was one who wrote to the opinion column in our local newspaper on a regular basis. One particular letter, I used the word "hogwash."

After it was printed, I was informed by a Saint I trusted to know what they were talking about, that the use of that word was another way of saying something else.

In thinking about it, it made sense and I have refrained from using.

Now, just because my friend said this is the way it is and I have stopped saying it, doesn't mean we are correct. We could be as off base as can be, but what tv posted here is not news to me.

tv1a · #7 07-04-2007, 07:48 PM

This thread is intended to be taken as serious as a WP diatribe. The thread is a creative way of showing how easy it is to twist and manipulate words. Sort of like what the unofficial whipping post of aff wp was doing in the tft thread. The example was too good to pass up. Forgive me for trying to keep my legalistic powers sharp. Maybe someday they will come in handy and be used to better mankind.