Dear Future Gamer,

I think that Patrick Allan Gannon needs to actually read the words of others with more discretion. And that's Mr. Foster or Michael to you. Politeness costs nothing, young man. As his rather uneloquent letter makes clear, he is somebody who can use a thesaurus program with ease ("flagitious, nefarious, insipid", indeed). He would do well to realise that abuse remains abuse, and is the sign of a vulgar person without a sound argument, whether you swear or not. However, the English language is a two-way instrument of communication, and without understanding of the words of others there is no true meeting of minds.

If he re-reads my letter, the central point was about swearing in context. I find the point he makes about unnecessary swearing a good one. Indeed, I do find it sad that people use profanity as a punctuation mark in conversation and that, used as such, it is the sign of a limited vocabulary. Expletives do have a valid place in spoken and written language, as he will find if he continues to study English. Excepting the use, for factual reference to an article of text, of the word "fuck" (and I use it again advisedly and in context) at no time did I resort to rude-wordery (couldn't resist) to make my point, and I would expect any gratuitous swearing to offend, hence its lack. I do not subscribe to the view that it is okay to swear because children know all the words already. This is a rather simplistic interpretation of what I thought was a quite clearly made point.

The point I made was that to pretend that such words do not exist and to sweep them under the carpet is to censor and misrepresent the English language. I think that if Mr Gannon were to read some grown up literature he would find that, in context and with good effect, the gamut of offensive language is commonplace, from swearing to blasphemy. Perhaps he would like to sit and read Chaucer, Shakespeare and D H Lawrence (with stout black marker at the ready to protect his delicate sensibilities). Far from, "contributing to the decline of society", (forsooth), I am afraid that colourful and downright obscene language is a part of the culture from which he has so lightly sprung. Alas, he seems ignorant of this. However, I fail to see why I should be treated like a five-year-old because people like Mr Gannon can't handle the full and uninhibited use of their native tongue. I also find it laughable that a direct quote from an interviewee cannot, in Mr Gannon's view, be accurately reported without resorting to use of the ridiculous asterisk.

I am happy for Mr Gannon that he has had a Road To Damascus-style conversion from the pernicious evils of swearing. Unfortunately he doesn't seem to realise how offensive and bigoted he looks to we poor lower orders who still swear occasionally, as he looks condescendingly down on us from his position of lofty wisdom at the pinnacle of his ivory tower.

As he fails to take issue with the point that narrow-minded censorship simply adds to the appeal of the censored object I assume that he has no view on this. Look again at this point, Mr Patrick Allan Gannon, and tell me if this argument is without merit. Reassess your position on editorial control, and if you still find the foundations of your beliefs sound, I will agree to differ.

By the way, Patrick, if I may be familiar, all these words are my own, I didn't look at a dictionary or thesaurus once. If you can say in all honesty that you have ever used the word, "flagitious", once before in your life, either spoken or on paper, or indeed had ever before seen it until you wrote your letter, I stand humbled in the shadow of your towering intellect and literary scope. It's just a shame you will never read this as you have censored yourself from ever hearing a reply.

Michael Foster

FG: Marvellously put. Although it's been fun having a go back at young Patrick, I think Michael's made the point eloquently enough for us all. Let's move on to weightier topics...