Antti Hynonen Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 (edited) Bill Miller Posted Today, 05:39 PM QUOTE ass1 (ăs) pronunciation n., 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 Bill, Ultimately the mods have to decide what is appropriate and what is not. This is not an easy job. I think use of the above word in any sense to refer to a fellow member is inappropriate. I also want to say that moderation is not about controlling the use of a word or the publishing of a single word, it is about controlling how one refers to others and what one might consider an insult. Even if you feel that the person you are referring to is dead wrong or simply "doesn't have a clue" there are far better and far more tactful ways of saying this than using words such as the above. I fully understand that debate can be hot at times, but that is when we need to cool down enough to not hurt anyones feelings. Antti Edited July 19, 2007 by Antti Hynonen 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 xxxx is a perfectly legitimate dictionary word for smelly excrement. This is blatant censorship of the worst kind. Sorta like the CIA and their black markers on XXXXXXXXXX documents that expose XXXXX! I protest this gagging of XXXXXXX free speech! Moderators? XXXXXXX CENSORS! XXXX is not a XXXXXXX curse word or swear word. It is a word describing a bodily function, for XXXXXsake. I say, go XXX XXXX XX XXXX XXXXXXXX. Jack Edited July 19, 2007 by Jack White 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 xxxx is a perfectly legitimate dictionary word for smelly excrement. This is blatant censorship of the worst kind. Sort like the CIA and their black markers on XXXX documents that expose XXXXX! I protest this gagging of XXXXXXX free speech! Moderators? XXXXXXX CENSORS! Jack Sir, you just do that to be difficult, don't you? Kathy XXXXXXX Moderator No. I believe in freedom of speech and it should be protected from censors who believe in "correctness". Apparently the XXXXXXXXXX "moderators" do not. Bodily functions are not swearing. XXXX describes smelly excrement, which is what the "moderators" are more concerned with than XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX evidence. Jack PS...may I ask what a XXXXXX Moderator is? I am not very good at reading XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX redactions. Edited July 19, 2007 by Jack White Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Miller Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Bill, Ultimately the mods have to decide what is appropriate and what is not. This is not an easy job. I think use of the above word in any sense to refer to a fellow member is inappropriate. I also want to say that moderation is not about controlling the use of a word or the publishing of a single word, it is about controlling how one refers to others and what one might consider an insult. Even if you feel that the person you are referring to is dead wrong or simply "doesn't have a clue" there are far better and far more tactful ways of saying this than using words such as the above. I fully understand that debate can be hot at times, but that is when we need to cool down enough to not hurt anyones feelings. Antti Antti, I appreciate the position you are in, but one can say someone is making a "donkey" out of themselves and you'd be OK with that - yet the word I used means the exact same thing in accordance with the dictionary. So the problem doesn't seem to lay with a particular word, but rather with those who wish to interpret it in any way they wish to. Depending on the culture - a harmless word in one culture can be a direct insult to someone in another. While I agree with not wanting the forum to become riddled with vulgar language .... you are going to run into all kinds of headaches if you go overboard with trying to over censor peoples post. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Hogan Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 No. I believe in freedom of speech and it should be protected from censors who believe in "correctness". I think most Forum members believe in freedom of speech. That doesn't mean its okay to use the N word on the downtown streets of Dallas, as they did in the sixties. Even the staunchest defender of freedom of speech wouldn't tend to use the F word or the S word in the presence of strangers or people they just met. The real believer in free speech recognizes there is a place and a time for everything. There are plenty of chat rooms and news groups where one can go and listen to or use any language they want to. My language is much saltier with my close friends than it is in a restaurant or grocery store. Even a free society has some forms of protocol. The Education Forum represents an online society, after a fashion. Bottom line, the use of certain language is an insult to the stated aims of the person that makes the JFK Assassination Debate section available to all of us. To me, its about self-respect as well as respect for John Simkin and what he has provided. John has done a remarkable job in allowing members to express themselves freely. The responsibility is a difficult one, and often thankless. He deserves the right to draw a line if he feels it is necessary. I realize that not every one shares my opinion. That's all it is, just an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Black Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 I have a sincere and legitimate question which I hope is not in violation of forum rules. I was reading in another thread that three members had been warned / cautioned regarding language. Since the thread was closed and I did not want to be redundant and begin a new thread, I decided to enter my question here. Do the moderators act as body similar to a jury? Does it take all moderators to be in agreement in order for a member to be found guilty? Does "one" vote of "not guilty" act as an acquittal? Does one vote of "guilty" effect sentencing? Earlier today while on the beach, I expressed to my wife that she has a nice rear end (though I used another word for rear end) ...... should she feel complimented or "sworn at" ? It has been pointed out on several ocassions that due to the international composition of the forum, we seem to have some major cultural differences.....could ones particular culture increase the chances of being thought of, God forbid, "as a swearer" ? Is it taken into consideration that perhaps some of the culturally deficient may be breaking rules due to this deficiency? Perhaps members should be required, prior to the granting of membership, to complete a study of the correct procedure for the mingling of international culture. But which culture should be used as "model"? Should that be voted on by all members....dictated.....or decided by the moderation board ? But then again, what percentage of moderators or overall vote is required to decide the issue. If there can be no common agreement, perhaps we could refer it to the U.N. But that is not a good idea because it could be "vetoed" by one security council member ! This is a major global dilemma that requires immediate attention and action, but I am more confused now than when I asked my initial question. By the way....in that we seem to be culturally compatible, my wife took my comment as a compliment ! Charles Black Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 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 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 xxxx is a perfectly legitimate dictionary word for smelly excrement. This is blatant censorship of the worst kind. Sort like the CIA and their black markers on XXXX documents that expose XXXXX! I protest this gagging of XXXXXXX free speech! Moderators? XXXXXXX CENSORS! Jack Sir, you just do that to be difficult, don't you? Kathy XXXXXXX Moderator No. I believe in freedom of speech and it should be protected from censors who believe in "correctness". Apparently the XXXXXXXXXX "moderators" do not. Bodily functions are not swearing. XXXX describes smelly excrement, which is what the "moderators" are more concerned with than XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX evidence. Jack PS...may I ask what a XXXXXX Moderator is? I am not very good at reading XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX redactions. ************************************************************ Since we seem to be back to whipping this dead horse once again... My all time favorite is, Jesus H. Christ! But, when I'm really in a state of "KILL THE MOFO!" Oh, and BTW Mofo is an acronym my bruthas' and sistas' turned me onto back in 60's. It's short for muthafxxka. As I was saying, whilst in a state of road rage, or having to deal with some imbecilic moron who wouldn't know his rectum from a hole in the ground, well fxxkin' axxhole works just fine for me. Being the crude and rude "ugly American" that I am. Keeps me from getting an ulcer, actually. But, these days I've taken to cultivating the fine art of verbal offense sans the cuss words. It's quite exhilarating, and who knows? One day it might be found to keep you from getting Alzheimer's, I'm sure. Anyhoola, I hope I used enough xxx's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack White Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 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 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 xxxx is a perfectly legitimate dictionary word for smelly excrement. This is blatant censorship of the worst kind. Sort like the CIA and their black markers on XXXX documents that expose XXXXX! I protest this gagging of XXXXXXX free speech! Moderators? XXXXXXX CENSORS! Jack Sir, you just do that to be difficult, don't you? Kathy XXXXXXX Moderator No. I believe in freedom of speech and it should be protected from censors who believe in "correctness". Apparently the XXXXXXXXXX "moderators" do not. Bodily functions are not swearing. XXXX describes smelly excrement, which is what the "moderators" are more concerned with than XXXXXX XXXXXXX XXXXXXXXX evidence. Jack PS...may I ask what a XXXXXX Moderator is? I am not very good at reading XXXXXXXXXX XXXXXXX redactions. ************************************************************ Since we seem to be back to whipping this dead horse once again... My all time favorite is, Jesus H. Christ! But, when I'm really in a state of "KILL THE MOFO!" Oh, and BTW Mofo is an acronym my bruthas' and sistas' turned me onto back in 60's. It's short for muthafxxka. As I was saying, whilst in a state of road rage, or having to deal with some imbecilic moron who wouldn't know his rectum from a hole in the ground, well fxxkin' axxhole works just fine for me. Being the crude and rude "ugly American" that I am. Keeps me from getting an ulcer, actually. But, these days I've taken to cultivating the fine art of verbal offense sans the cuss words. It's quite exhilarating, and who knows? One day it might be found to keep you from getting Alzheimer's, I'm sure. Anyhoola, I hope I used enough xxx's. Hi, Terry. Language is in a bad state. Personally I never use curse words except in extreme situations, such as two weeks ago I dropped a 2x4 on my foot, outside and alone, and I yelled out XXX XXXXXX XXXXXXXXXXX! Mere crudity apparently is now acceptable and reference to bodily functions and body parts is considered "humor". In one of the recent movies I saw, actor XXXXX XXXXXX constantly used the word XXXXXXXXXXXX to the great delight of the audience, which included many children. I have never used that word. Mere crudity or coarseness is NOT cursing. I never use the NNNNNN word. Sitting in the bathroom taking a XXXX is not cursing, but description of a bodily function. Prudes should worry about important stuff, not XXXXXXX XXXXX XXXX XXXXX. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 No. I believe in freedom of speech and it should be protected from censors who believe in "correctness". I think most Forum members believe in freedom of speech. That doesn't mean its okay to use the N word on the downtown streets of Dallas, as they did in the sixties. Even the staunchest defender of freedom of speech wouldn't tend to use the F word or the S word in the presence of strangers or people they just met. The real believer in free speech recognizes there is a place and a time for everything. There are plenty of chat rooms and news groups where one can go and listen to or use any language they want to. My language is much saltier with my close friends than it is in a restaurant or grocery store. Even a free society has some forms of protocol. The Education Forum represents an online society, after a fashion. Bottom line, the use of certain language is an insult to the stated aims of the person that makes the JFK Assassination Debate section available to all of us. To me, its about self-respect as well as respect for John Simkin and what he has provided. John has done a remarkable job in allowing members to express themselves freely. The responsibility is a difficult one, and often thankless. He deserves the right to draw a line if he feels it is necessary. I realize that not every one shares my opinion. That's all it is, just an opinion. FWIW I think that's really nicely stated Mike. Free speech doesn't guarantee a forum. I'll add my observation that the non-swearing rule, among others, was implemented a while back. So it seems gratuitously argumentative to start debating a rule every time it's enforced. Furthermore it is possible to express oneself without swearing. ... Ned Flanders does it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evan Burton Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 If I could poke my head in here and give my 2c worth... Being a sailor, I've heard streams of invective that contain swear words from around the globe. It doesn't phase me one little bit. If I haven't been called it, I probably will be someday. And my language can be VERY 'colourful' at times. That being said, I think it says something for the posters who can make their points - forcefully & convincingly - without swearing. If you feel it necessary to insult an opponent, it shows a little class if you are able to do it without resorting to swearing. Indeed, the old adage says that the art of diplomacy is being able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way as to make them look forward to the journey! (climbs off soapbox) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terry Mauro Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 If I could poke my head in here and give my 2c worth...Being a sailor, I've heard streams of invective that contain swear words from around the globe. It doesn't phase me one little bit. If I haven't been called it, I probably will be someday. And my language can be VERY 'colourful' at times. That being said, I think it says something for the posters who can make their points - forcefully & convincingly - without swearing. If you feel it necessary to insult an opponent, it shows a little class if you are able to do it without resorting to swearing. Indeed, the old adage says that the art of diplomacy is being able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way as to make them look forward to the journey! (climbs off soapbox) ********************************************************************** "Indeed, the old adage says that the art of diplomacy is being able to tell someone to go to hell in such a way as to make them look forward to the journey!" A definite art in its own right, or should that be "write?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Simkin Posted July 20, 2007 Author Share Posted July 20, 2007 No. I believe in freedom of speech and it should be protected from censors who believe in "correctness". I think most Forum members believe in freedom of speech. That doesn't mean its okay to use the N word on the downtown streets of Dallas, as they did in the sixties. Even the staunchest defender of freedom of speech wouldn't tend to use the F word or the S word in the presence of strangers or people they just met. The real believer in free speech recognizes there is a place and a time for everything. There are plenty of chat rooms and news groups where one can go and listen to or use any language they want to. My language is much saltier with my close friends than it is in a restaurant or grocery store. Even a free society has some forms of protocol. The Education Forum represents an online society, after a fashion. Bottom line, the use of certain language is an insult to the stated aims of the person that makes the JFK Assassination Debate section available to all of us. To me, its about self-respect as well as respect for John Simkin and what he has provided. John has done a remarkable job in allowing members to express themselves freely. The responsibility is a difficult one, and often thankless. He deserves the right to draw a line if he feels it is necessary. I realize that not every one shares my opinion. That's all it is, just an opinion. Thank you for these comments. The main point is this forum was set up for children in the classroom to gain access to information about controversial issues. This is part of the UK National History Curriculum. (See the thread on Mary Pinchot Meyer): In the UK we do not allow people to swear the classroom. Most teachers disapprove of swear words used in the classroom. If they read swearing on the forum they will no longer encourage their students to use this website. In fact, they will probably arrange for the forum to be blocked on the school network. As is often the case, one person's freedom leads to restrictions on someone else's freedom. Secondly, this forum is attempting to teach people about rational and logically debate. The use of abusive language plays no part in this. I have attempted to keep out of this debate and my moderators have been left with the responsibility of trying to persuade people to behave in an accepted manner. In return, I am duty bound to give them my full support if the request that if members refuse to behave, they are placed on moderation. This does not stop their opinions from appearing. What it means is that moderators will check the language of these members before they can be viewed by the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myra Bronstein Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 The main point is this forum was set up for children... We know that John. That's why we're acting like children. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antti Hynonen Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 (edited) Bill Miller Posted Yesterday, 10:52 PM QUOTE Bill, Ultimately the mods have to decide what is appropriate and what is not. This is not an easy job. I think use of the above word in any sense to refer to a fellow member is inappropriate. I also want to say that moderation is not about controlling the use of a word or the publishing of a single word, it is about controlling how one refers to others and what one might consider an insult. Even if you feel that the person you are referring to is dead wrong or simply "doesn't have a clue" there are far better and far more tactful ways of saying this than using words such as the above. I fully understand that debate can be hot at times, but that is when we need to cool down enough to not hurt anyones feelings. Antti Antti, I appreciate the position you are in, but one can say someone is making a "donkey" out of themselves and you'd be OK with that - yet the word I used means the exact same thing in accordance with the dictionary. So the problem doesn't seem to lay with a particular word, but rather with those who wish to interpret it in any way they wish to. Depending on the culture - a harmless word in one culture can be a direct insult to someone in another. While I agree with not wanting the forum to become riddled with vulgar language .... you are going to run into all kinds of headaches if you go overboard with trying to over censor peoples post. Bill Well, I'd not be ok with referring to someone as a donkey. For instance if you were to call me a donkey, or if you were to say that I was acting like one, I'd feel offended. Edited July 20, 2007 by Antti Hynonen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest David Guyatt Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 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 David, If you have any ideas about reducing"the noise" by some posters then by all means, please forward them. While not agreeing with you with your thumbnail icons because it would offend some(however it is highly creative and I wouldn't mind receiving them personally), it reminded me of an thought I've had for a thread: I would think it would be great fun to have a thread where ideas had to be expressed in nothing but emoticons. Kathy Kathy, I know what you mean about offending people, but I find it mildly annoying when sensible and intelligent debate is hijacked by persons intent upon petty personal squabbles. But I do have a suggestion how this can be remedied. Since the culprits wish to express their anima to the detriment of everyone else present, then let them do it. What I propose is a "sin bin". Any posts deemed off-topic are to be cut and pasted to a new one-header only forum set up especially for this purpose. Call it what you will... maybe "Sin Bin" is an ideal moniker? Those who wish to - or enjoy - enaging in disputation, insult or slur, rather than sensible debate, can all go there and fire off their twenty smoking rounds until they run out of ammunition. To work this would require moderators being iron-willed and no nonsense about cutting and pasting and firm rules about what is off-topic need to be laid out aso everyone is clear about it. if such a decision is made and voted upon by a majority of respondents, then it becomes forum law. I doubtless will see a few of my posts entering these hallowed halls and hereby commit myself to swallow any pride or anger if that happens... and get on with the fudamental purpose of these boards -- adult discussion of controversial topics. For me, these topics amount to some of the most vital means of making the wider public aware of the real world and exposing the real background to important and domestic and world events. God knows there are few enough individuals committed to this ideal anyway. David 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