The use of words? please read further?

Question:What do you think right speech is? what do you think wrong speech is? how do you refrain from using wrong speach when you are tempted to use it? can you give examples from your religion pls.
here are a couple of sutta's on right speach http://manapa.multiply.com/journal/item/...
Well-spoken (Subhasita) One should speak only that word by which one would not torment oneself nor harm others. That word is indeed well spoken.
One should speak only pleasant words, words which are acceptable (to others). What one speaks without bringing evils to others is pleasant.
Truth is indeed the undying word; this is an ancient verity. Upon truth, the good say, the goal and the teaching are founded.
The sure word the Awakened One speaks for the attainment of nibbana, for making an end of suffering, is truly the best of words.
As always I ask this with Loving Kindness (Metta)
(((((All Sentient Beings

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker: What do you think right speech is? what do you think wrong speech is? how do you refrain from using wrong speach when you are tempted to use it? can you give examples from your religion pls.
here are a couple of sutta's on right speach http://manapa.multiply.com/journal/item/...
Well-spoken (Subhasita) One should speak only that word by which one would not torment oneself nor harm others. That word is indeed well spoken.
One should speak only pleasant words, words which are acceptable (to others). What one speaks without bringing evils to others is pleasant.
Truth is indeed the undying word; this is an ancient verity. Upon truth, the good say, the goal and the teaching are founded.
The sure word the Awakened One speaks for the attainment of nibbana, for making an end of suffering, is truly the best of words.
As always I ask this with Loving Kindness (Metta)
(((((All Sentient Beings

for me it is not so much the use of words, but the state of mind where they come from. even great enlightened masters sometimes used rough speech, ruthless compassion, to make the disciple wake up.
but, of course, it is a great practise to become more and more aware by only using conscious words...

in the end people misunderstand all your words, no matter how hard you try not to offend them. even the nicest person on this planet has his "enemies"...
come to know who you truly are, for that, what you are is beyond words, beyond thought. then you can use words as a means to awaken others, no need to console others, to pamper them in their illusion anymore...
awakened ones are not here to console you and be nice to you, they disturb you until you have broken through your veils of illusion (maya)... unless you are shaken and frightened by your master, he is of no use.

speak from your heart, speak your truth.

I have no religion.

I just believe that if and when you speak to another being,either human or animal that it is important to be "nice" have "manners" and be as kind from the eyes as you can as well as the mouth.

That in effect means that you need to know yourself first,before you know others,as you need to be able to be honest to all including yourself.

I do not like to be nasty,mean,horrible or cruel,but there are times when these situations arise.
I never go into a confrontation without thinking it through.

If a spur of the moment incident occurs that requires a "negative" or aggressive response then i am very capable.

But as a rule i try not to speak bad things.

These are indeed eternal truths; but spoken religiously rather than with any objectivity. Objectivity would explain why each truth is a truth, where with this we are expected to be awed by it's "wisdom", whereas the wisdom is alway contextual. This, your religious tract, gives no context.

"One should speak only that word by which one would not torment oneself nor harm others. That word is indeed well spoken." This is the behavior of a rational egoist http://www.iep.utm.edu/e/egoism.htm
, a person who does not act to bring harm to himself (torment, maybe through guilt, or though lies) nor would such an egoist accept that he had the right to harm others. So he agrees with the conclusion; but he waits for your major and middle terms. You do not provide them.
The "non-initiation of force" is the prime axiom of Objectivist ethics. "So long as men desire to live together, no man may initiate—do you hear me? no man may start—the use of physical force against others."

That part is the same. The objective part missing from your religious tract is this:
"To interpose the threat of physical destruction [the logical extreme of "harm"] between a man and his perception of reality, is to negate and paralyze his means of survival; to force him to act against his own judgment, is like forcing him to act against his own sight. Whoever, to whatever purpose or extent, initiates the use of force, is a killer acting on the premise of death in a manner wider than murder: the premise of destroying man's capacity to live."

The rest of your tract is the same. Worn out truths, worn out by the fact that religious tracts never bother to back up their "commandments" with the ethical logic and rationality of true and completed philosophy.

Religion is philosophy with "some part" missing, here or there, depending on what you are reading.

Some verses leave out the ethics; some leave out the epistemology; some leave out the metaphysics; and we are left holding the bag trying to piece them all together, as Christians do with the Bible.

Truths are only as good as the philosophical back-up they get from the objective completion of their ideas.