Thomas Graves Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 (edited) So far this thread has had 664 viewings. No doubt a large number of people visit the forum to get a regular laugh from some of our regular posters. _________________________________ You're absolutely right, John. In fact my controller has just told me on my myspace account that his colleagues at The Agency have been literally rolling on the floors in (ironically) uncontrollable, hysterical laughter for the last couple of days. And no, it doesn't have anything to do with.... --Thomas G. P.S. Sorry about your team's getting relegated... _________________________________ Edited April 18, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Stephen Turner Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 (edited) [--Thomas G. P.S. Sorry about your team's getting relegated... _________________________________ Thomas, beware. You are jumping the gun, the "Hammers" aren't down and out just yet. In the words of Jimmy Greaves, "Football's a funny old game." Edited April 18, 2007 by Stephen Turner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dawn Meredith Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I know this is off topic but I have developed a sneaky feeling that Lee H Oswald didnt shoot Kennedy, and that it was, in fact a massive conspiracy> Someone should start a forum about it. A very perceptive comment. So far this thread has had 664 viewings. No doubt a large number of people visit the forum to get a regular laugh from some of our regular posters. My eyes actually hurt this morning from all the crying I did last night watching the coverage of the kids and teachers murdered at VA. Tech. So it's been a nice reprieve to read this thread and have some laughs. God knows we all need one. Dawn Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 I know this is off topic but I have developed a sneaky feeling that Lee H Oswald didnt shoot Kennedy, and that it was, in fact a massive conspiracy> Someone should start a forum about it. A very perceptive comment. So far this thread has had 664 viewings. No doubt a large number of people visit the forum to get a regular laugh from some of our regular posters. ****************************************************************** "So far this thread has had 664 viewings. No doubt a large number of people visit the forum to get a regular laugh from some of our regular posters." Well John, I guess that just goes to show you that the bloody, colonial dregs, first exiled to the Penal Colonies of the Americas, and then on to the shores of New Zealand and Australia, definitely learned to develop a grand sense of humor needed to deal with their plight. A positive evolutionary, if not revolutionary, trait. However vulgar it may seem, yet hilarious, nonetheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sid Walker Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 The words Blair, Bush and Olmert are obviously profanities too obscene to mention in front of young children. Whereas blair and olmert are no great loss to the language, avoiding the term 'bush' presents more difficulties, especially to Australians. Still, if Myra can do without half her vocabulary, it doesn't seem too high a price to pay in the interests of common decency. The way forward is to find acceptable alternatives, depending on the intended meaning. For example: bush > brushbush > small tree bush > pubic hair Not too much effort to be polite, is it? There is also the delightful word 'motte', which can get you out of trouble on most occasions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 (edited) My-rah!,That is by far the most cogent and well-written piece ever posted on The Forum! Excellent grammar, syntax, and "vocabulary," and I actually laughed twice. Seriously! Unfortunately, I know that you'll now slowly start gravitating back to your main "thing", I'm afraid,-- trying to read ten or twelve books on the assassination and watching all the videos and TV shows, all simultaneously, and posting, posting, posting, away, with the (occasional) valid question or insightful observation and the (more-frequent) outraged, poignant, and (just-ever-so-slightly) paranoiac, uhh, ...uhh... philippic, yes!, all of which (sob!), really tear me up and/or make me really, really, really angry at the unjust country in which we (you and I, for example) choose, yes!, choose!, I suppose, uhh...to live, yes?.... nota bene: I lived in a former "Worker's Paradise" country for seven years... Fascinating... I highly recommend it lol. --Thomas P.S. It's a pity that you "#*&&%@ off" and badgered "Tosh" Plumlee so much that he decided to leave The Forum... P.P.S. Believe it or not, Myra, I actually agree with the "free speech movement" which you and Terry and some others are espousing here on the JFK Assassination Debate forum. I guess we just gotta be clever and compromise and say, literally, "@&%#" them all, especially if they can't take a %#@&... P.P.P.S. I lied. I only laughed once.... ______________________________________ If this is the cover letter to your resume submission you're most definitely not going to be a finalist. Edited April 19, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 (edited) My-rah!,That is by far the most cogent and well-written piece ever posted on The Forum! Excellent grammar, syntax, and "vocabulary," and I actually laughed twice. Seriously! Unfortunately, I know that you'll now slowly start gravitating back to your main "thing", I'm afraid,-- trying to read ten or twelve books on the assassination and watching all the videos and TV shows, all simultaneously, and posting, posting, posting, away, with the (occasional) valid question or insightful observation and the (more-frequent) outraged, poignant, and (just-ever-so-slightly) paranoiac, uhh, ...uhh... philippic, yes!, all of which (sob!), really tear me up and/or make me really, really, really angry at the unjust country in which we (you and I, for example) choose, yes!, choose!, I suppose, uhh...to live, yes?.... nota bene: I lived in a former "Worker's Paradise" country for seven years... Fascinating... I highly recommend it lol. --Thomas P.S. It's a pity that you "#*&&%@ off" and badgered "Tosh" Plumlee so much that he decided to leave The Forum... P.P.S. Believe it or not, Myra, I actually agree with the "free speech movement" which you and Terry and some others are espousing here on the JFK Assassination Debate forum. I guess we just gotta be clever and compromise and say, literally, "@&%#" them all, especially if they can't take a %#@&... P.P.P.S. I lied. I only laughed once.... ______________________________________ If this is the cover letter to your resume submission you're most definitely not going to be a finalist. __________________________________ Oh, Draught! , I mean Drat! __________________________________ Edited April 19, 2007 by Thomas Graves Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 (edited) As a point of order, surely physical chastisement of the fairer Forum Members(Known in Britain as a bit of "slap and tickle") should be seen as an offshoot of the Moderators role. And I for one will not shirk from my duty.... Pulling rank eh Steve? ...I know this is off topic but I have developed a sneaky feeling that Lee H Oswald didnt shoot Kennedy, and that it was, in fact a massive conspiracy> Someone should start a forum about it. We could start such a forum, but it would probably just degenerate into endless bickering. And for the moderators it'd be the ultimate thankless task with nothing but aggravation and wasted time. No, better to stick with the topics that have proven to result in lively and harmonious discourse--swearing and spanking. Edited April 19, 2007 by Myra Bronstein Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thomas Graves Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 My-rah!,That is by far the most cogent and well-written piece ever posted on The Forum! Excellent grammar, syntax, and "vocabulary," and I actually laughed twice. Seriously! Unfortunately, I know that you'll now slowly start gravitating back to your main "thing", I'm afraid,-- trying to read ten or twelve books on the assassination and watching all the videos and TV shows, all simultaneously, and posting, posting, posting, away, with the (occasional) valid question or insightful observation and the (more-frequent) outraged, poignant, and (just-ever-so-slightly) paranoiac, uhh, ...uhh... philippic, yes!, all of which (sob!), really tear me up and/or make me really, really, really angry at the unjust country in which we (you and I, for example) choose, yes!, choose!, I suppose, uhh...to live, yes?.... nota bene: I lived in a former "Worker's Paradise" country for seven years... Fascinating... I highly recommend it lol. --Thomas P.S. It's a pity that you "#*&&%@ off" and badgered "Tosh" Plumlee so much that he decided to leave The Forum... P.P.S. Believe it or not, Myra, I actually agree with the "free speech movement" which you and Terry and some others are espousing here on the JFK Assassination Debate forum. I guess we just gotta be clever and compromise and say, literally, "@&%#" them all, especially if they can't take a %#@&... P.P.P.S. I lied. I only laughed once.... ______________________________________ If this is the cover letter to your resume submission you're most definitely not going to be a finalist. __________________________________ Oh, Draught! , I mean Drat! I mean I mean.... Oh, @#$%$#@%$#@#$#@ !!!!! __________________________________ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted April 19, 2007 Share Posted April 19, 2007 I couldn't help but laugh when people were volunteering to be spankers! I'm sure the UK members will understand my amusement. Anyway, but to the real discussion... As a sailor, I am reasonably versed in the use of profanity. I have been privileged to witness some outbursts from true masters of the art; the use of profanity in these cases has been... well, sheer creativity. This is, though, a dying art. Quite properly, we must watch our language when it might cause offense. Personally I think it not matters a wit. Sticks and stones, etc. Poor use of profanity, in fact, simply demonstrates the inability to use profanity to emphasise a point (e.g. You $#%&**! are nothing but %^$#&@@* and all your $%#*&%$ ideas are $%#&%$$ **$#%!) or inability to craft a statement that is sufficiently powerful without such use. On the other hand, prudent use adds - eloquence? - to a statement. That being said, this being an EDUCATIONAL forum and in expectation of younger minds reading these posts, I think we should show are ability to restrain ourselves from using profanity. That, of course, leads back to the discussion of what IS profanity. I have been quite surprised by what I would consider nothing more than "colourful" language being considered profanity by my American friends (e.g. bloody). I really don't know - could we all mostly agree on a list of words that are considered 'profanity'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Knight Posted April 21, 2007 Share Posted April 21, 2007 (edited) Evan posted: "I really don't know - could we all mostly agree on a list of words that are considered 'profanity'?" If we must, then allow me to suggest that we begin with George Carlin's list of "The 7 Dirty Words You Can Never Say On Television"...which is a bit dated, since I heard a couple of them used on network TV just the other night. But at least that would give us a point of beginning. Or we could just ask Gerry Hemming the wrong question, and write down everything he says for our list of banned terms. Edited April 21, 2007 by Mark Knight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dolva Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 Evan posted: "I really don't know - could we all mostly agree on a list of words that are considered 'profanity'?"If we must, then allow me to suggest that we begin with George Carlin's list of "The 7 Dirty Words You Can Never Say On Television"...which is a bit dated, since I heard a couple of them used on network TV just the other night. But at least that would give us a point of beginning. Or we could just ask Gerry Hemming the wrong question, and write down everything he says for our list of banned terms. Some thoughts on this: I like Buddha. He thought a lot about these things. He formulated what is known as "The Noble Eightfold Path" leading to "The four Noble truths" and thence to "Enlightenment" or Nibbana through, Ana a Pana (focus, awareness, from I am walking, I am sitting etc, ultimately equanimously* in a small area under the nostrils, merely noticing the in and out breath as it is, or not, as the case may be, pleasant, unpleasant or neutral) and Vipassana ("seeing things all over the mind body phenomena as they are"). Most of his teachings is a guide to how to enable 'seeing things as they (truly) are'. So, basically his teachings are a handbook, to carry, on the path towards seeing the world without blinkers. Enlightnement is then reported, by those who take all the steps properly, as the natural result. IE if you look for the truth then you have a chance of finding it. Be aware, come to know, and then applied knowledge leads to wisdom) One aspect of the "Eightfold Path" is "Right Speech" (others are Right Thoughts, Right Action, Right Livelihood, Right Effort, Right Mindfulness, and Right Concentration) For those who want to read more about these things : http://buddhism.about.com/od/fournobletruths/a/RSpeech.htm which goes into a lot of this. "The Buddha understood the significance of speech, its power and its potential for good or ill. Lying, Telling Tales, Harsh Language, Frivolous Talk Like any other wholesome actions Right Speech brings good results such as respect and trust. It is also social cohesive, bringing unity and harmony between people." (For a christian (as I am BTW) it's good to understand that Buddha did not say there is no god. He in fact refused to discuss the matter, except insofar as his Language, "Pali" (at that time only spoken, not written for another 300 odd years) had a grammatical structure that made for words like nogod. So in speaking truth about this matter he said that 'nogod' exists. It's a bit like saying light exists and nolight, or darkness exists. Essentially Buddhas message is christian, karma: you reap what you sow, let the seeds of the fruits of past wrong action fall on barren ground, love one another, let the wrong words of others or the reaction within oneself to those words fall on barren soil, don't pour petrol on a fire, etc.etc.) equa + animus : even mindedness, which leads to judice, not pre judice PS> just because I think these are good writings doesn't in any way mean I am such a person. I 'loose' it. We almost all do, Some overtly and some deceptively. I prefer the overt attack on myself. Almost invariable a mutual understanding of sorts can be found. Some of the people on this Forum far on the other side of the political spectrum to myself communicate respectfully. When truth is the aim there are much common ground to cover. (Basically I think that often the best one can do is to take MORE steps in the right direction, than in the wrong direction.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Having been very nicely and politely scolded over my ocassional use of the world's utmost leading Anglo Saxon word, I thought I might just add my bit. That bit is about context. If swearing is used in anger and to abuse others then okay, banish it. It is all too easy to get into a flame war over the internet. However, if that context is humour, or is used as a wonderful and sardonic descriptive, then I see no reason whatsoever to ban it. All rules are made to be broken and only sensible rules ultimately prevail. Download: http://files.kavefish.com/audio/usage_of_the_f-word.wav Personally, I think it is far more important to diminish the same old repetitive arguments by the same old usual suspects. Tedium sets in after the first few times these are read -zzzzzzzzzz - and they considerably detract from the subject under discussion. Often, an important subject is lost sight of altogether because of petty squabling and infantile ego clashes that will not be relinquished. Maybe the moderators can get together and discuss options to reduce this? If adults can't meaningfully contribute to a thread then perhaps their posts should be accompanied by a graphic that highlights their temperament? I am no moderator and will never make a half reasonable one either. Which is why I can safely say that I would award a thumbnail image of a baby's teething comforter (dummy in the UK) to persistant offenders: I would even be quite happy to test drive this image to avoid charges of unfairness... David Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) Having been very nicely and politely scolded over my ocassional use of the world's utmost leading Anglo Saxon word, I thought I might just add my bit.That bit is about context. If swearing is used in anger and to abuse others then okay, banish it. It is all too easy to get into a flame war over the internet. However, if that context is humour, or is used as a wonderful and sardonic descriptive, then I see no reason whatsoever to ban it. All rules are made to be broken and only sensible rules ultimately prevail. Download: http://files.kavefish.com/audio/usage_of_the_f-word.wav Personally, I think it is far more important to diminish the same old repetitive arguments by the same old usual suspects. Tedium sets in after the first few times these are read -zzzzzzzzzz - and they considerably detract from the subject under discussion. Often, an important subject is lost sight of altogether because of petty squabling and infantile ego clashes that will not be relinquished. Maybe the moderators can get together and discuss options to reduce this? If adults can't meaningfully contribute to a thread then perhaps their posts should be accompanied by a graphic that highlights their temperament? I am no moderator and will never make a half reasonable one either. Which is why I can safely say that I would award a thumbnail image of a baby's teething comforter (dummy in the UK) to persistant offenders: I would even be quite happy to test drive this image to avoid charges of unfairness... David I agree, David. You like the F word. I prefer the S word. In my opinion the use of XXXX is not swearing. XXXX describes something foul and smelly. Rather than beat around the bush with euphemisms, I prefer to say that the excrement some pass off as research is XXXX. The purveyor is full of XXXX. If he constantly emits these excretions, I see nothing wrong with saying he is an XXXXXXX the SOURCE of XXXX. The body of the work of an XXXXXXX is a XXXXXXXXXXXX. It may be impolite, but it is not swearing. It is just an honest description of a smelly product. Anyone who censors my right to use this word is full of ....XXXX. Jack Here we are in a forum about swearing, and you post in capital letters, no less, several objectionable words. Please delete these or we will. We don't want to have to delete what you write , but you should not be allowed to do this if it is forbidden for others to do. Kathy I agree. Done. Jack, go curse elsewhere! Antti Edited July 19, 2007 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) ass1 (ăs) pronunciationn., pl. ass·es (ăs'ĭz). 1. Any of several hoofed mammals of the genus Equus, resembling and closely related to the horses but having a smaller build and longer ears, and including the domesticated donkey. 2. A vain, self-important, silly, or aggressively stupid person. Who decides what is swearing and what is not? Even when the meaning is presented with the term posted .... it matters little for the word seems to be defined not by the dictionary, but rather by people who make it out to mean what ever they wish it to be. The whole thing has gotten ridiculous. Bill Miller Edited July 19, 2007 by Kathy Beckett Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now