Life In 19x19

xed_over wrote:I think kircmc has been away from America too long

daniel_the_smith wrote:@kircmc & John

I've met plenty of people who would be offended at the word @$$.

I still am, personally, and know plenty of others who are also.
I hate this seemingly popular trend that most, if not all, of these "bad" words are becoming more and more socially acceptable.

Once I saw someone observe that "bad words" are culturally defined; coming out of the Victorian era all the "bad words" were sexual or scatological in nature, but modern society has changed and the worst words are now for the most part those that single out groups for exclusion-- racial slurs. Donkey is definitely in the first group; I think now that sex and poop are not such scandolous topics those words are losing/have lost their ability to offend people (more so in some places than others, of course). I don't know how broadly this applies but it seems there's some truth to it.

I'd like someone edit my grammar mistakes, like my English teacher does. Of course, Admins are not here to do this

I did sometimes do that on GoDiscussions for thread titles. Very occasionally for post bodies as well.

There is quite an offensive strain in some of the posts by non-admins. It is the line that something offensive was said and that it's a good thing that somebody cleaned it up. The whole point of my protest is that it was not even mildly offensive in its intent, by someone who is speaking British English. I am not seeking to shock or offend anyone. I am simply writing in my own voice and idiom as a British person (a northern one at that) and will continue to do so.

I am not fighting to say rude or offensive things. What I am objecting to is an operator (the filter writer) and/or admin *imposing* American and/or pc values on me.

FWIW if the admin had come on to me and asked whether I was aware that a certain phrase about a donkey is offensive to some people in America, I would be frankly disbelieving (and a quick check of my own dictionaries and sites such as wikitionary has revealed no stronger rating than "slang" - and I see there is a DVD of that title). However, the phrase in question was no more than salt-and-pepper seasoning and I would, for public consumption, have been willing to remove or rewrite, and I would probably even avoid the phrase here in future, although I freely confess that I would, privately, still forcibly remind the admin that British English is as entitled to air space as American English. (Talking of air space, the very same phrase was used on BBC TV later that same day, well before the kiddies watershed time.)

The other item, which I think it best not to air now given the nature of the way things have moved on, contained no swear words, no names. However, I will say that it was a rhetorical question summarising the same thought just previously used without question, and the word to which the admin apparently took exception was "you". I think he gave the game away when he said it was a "mild" ad hominem. He clearly wasn't sure. I'm sure it wasn't. Now in that case if the admin had come to me and said that he thought it was offensive, again I would have been disbelieving, but this time it is not a matter of British/American English, but of interpretation* and I would have taken a different tack. I would be more receptive to persuasion in this case. However, I would still have tried to point out to him why it wasn't offensive, or at least not meant to be. He would either accept that or try to convince me otherwise. Either way, I would have almost certainly removed the phrase, because it was only a rhetorical flourish. But if he had not actually convinced me that it was offensive (as he hasn't), I would have made the point I've already made in public that the adminning is becoming heavy handed.

As far as I know I have never been adminned before, and I write plenty here. And I am not ashamed to put my own name to it. Those who have implied here that what the admins did was to "clean up my act" are the ones casting offensive aspersions.

*I think I'll modify this. It maybe is a British/American thing. There are different styles of public discourse in and between the two countries. The Martin Luther King "I have a dream" speech and the Gettysburg address have clearly different styles, and both are different from Churchill. But the Obama-style of aping King's speech, especially the threefold repetitions, has a creepy, hollow ring over here. On the other hand, perhaps rhetoric, especially in my clumsy hands, does not go down well in America. In any case, how a speech or article goes down is always a bit of a mystery in any country. I was amazed to learn that the marvellous Gettysburg address at the time was considered a very poor speech.

Redbeard wrote:

Jordus wrote:That certainly would be the preferred method. However, if there is offensive material in the post, how long will it sit there viewable to anyone as we wait to contact the OP and have them receive the message and remove it themselves? (I am assuming we are not deleting the post since the OP is editing their own message) Some people post and don't sign back in for days. Do you have a suggestion to avoid this?

Just to clarify, when I said that the OP could edit their own post, I meant repost with the edited content. If the moderator determines that the the content of the post could be deemed offensive, they should remove the post entirely and send the OP a PM explaining why the post was removed. The OP can then rephrase the content and re-post. Unless, of course, they have been banned for multiple offenses which would be a different case.

As far as I can tell, when an admin deletes the post all content is lost and there is currently no way to *hold* the post.... So I am not sure how to work this kind of thing out but I am looking into it.

And as far as the word filtering goes would it be less offensive to use asterisks instead of a word replacement like donkey?

Helel wrote:Interesting that the admin/moderators are of two different kinds.

The libertarian anarchists:
Topazg
Araban (hypocrite )

The fascistic control freaks:
Joaz
Jordus
Kirby (Who obviously has admin powers but sneaks around without showing it.)


Fwiffo, we are waiting for you!

I think I would be in the neutral zone... I have never edited another members post, only my own.... Or maybe I can be in a league of my own... like this guy lol

John Fairbairn wrote:I freely confess that I would, privately, still forcibly remind the admin that British English is as entitled to air space as American English.

If this is indeed a case of British vs. American, then it might be a problem for the PC folk.

But is it so?
Are the innocent-sounding americanisms which are offensive in England removed as well? If not, then this might be only because of a lack of proper British admin. If there is one, then he should be doing his job.

We have to live with the fact that there are many flavors of 'english' language, and some take offense at stuff others don't. For a multi-national forum catering to wide audiences, we need to settle not with the cross-section of all what's offensive in various places but with the sum total being rejected. If we are serious about moderating, I see no way around that.

Kirby wrote:

Chew Terr wrote:

Kirby wrote:The reason I do not use a red or green color for my name, is because I want to be able to help out with technical issues, but I don't like flaunting a distinction between myself as an admin and normal users. If you'd like for me to change the color of my name, I'd be happy to do so.

I think you should, just so that, if a new user has a technical question or issue, they know they can message you about it if necessary (or that they can trust you if you offer to help).

Alright, then.

Can my name be pink or yellow please?

Or alternating? thanks

-

daal wrote:

karaklis wrote:I'd like to express a big thanks to the mods who put their efforts in keeping this forum friendly. I think the way it is run currently is excellent.

Jordus wrote:EDIT I think Karaklis said it best with "F***** Friendly"

No he didn't. Or did "f*****" get edited out? It's hard to keep up with all the dirty words. If you're like me, you might find a pre-made word filter useful. I found one on the internet with almost 500 no-nos. There were quite a few words I had never before seen, such as: ******* , which apparently has something to do with ******; any reference to which would shame a good man, unless he was British. I couldn't find "f*****," in the list but I, who would have been an orphan had my parents died, find the word extremely disturbing. Thank you for removing it.

lol daal... that was my bad... I misread it ....

John Fairbairn wrote:
It maybe is a British/American thing. There are different styles of public discourse in and between the two countries. The Martin Luther King "I have a dream" speech and the Gettysburg address have clearly different styles, and both are different from Churchill. But the Obama-style of aping King's speech, especially the threefold repetitions, has a creepy, hollow ring over here. On the other hand, perhaps rhetoric, especially in my clumsy hands, does not go down well in America. In any case, how a speech or article goes down is always a bit of a mystery in any country. I was amazed to learn that the marvellous Gettysburg address at the time was considered a very poor speech.

Tossing bait around, are we? By the way, even Lincoln considered his speech a failure, which might serve to remind us that some of the dumber things people say might not be as dumb as they appear.

daal wrote:

John Fairbairn wrote:
It maybe is a British/American thing. There are different styles of public discourse in and between the two countries. The Martin Luther King "I have a dream" speech and the Gettysburg address have clearly different styles, and both are different from Churchill. But the Obama-style of aping King's speech, especially the threefold repetitions, has a creepy, hollow ring over here. On the other hand, perhaps rhetoric, especially in my clumsy hands, does not go down well in America. In any case, how a speech or article goes down is always a bit of a mystery in any country. I was amazed to learn that the marvellous Gettysburg address at the time was considered a very poor speech.

Tossing bait around, are we? By the way, even Lincoln considered his speech a failure, which might serve to remind us that some of the dumber things people say might not be as dumb as they appear.

Yes, with all due respect to John, he's missing quite a bit with that comment. The "threefold repetition" is a venerable rhetorical element used in American discourse, and goes back to much earlier religious speech-making. And Lincoln though he speech was so bad that he didn't even keep a copy of it. Apparently, hardly anyone heard it, though a reporter close enough was able to write it down.

I think all right-thinking donkeys in this forum are sick and tired of being told that ordinary, decent donkeys are fed up in this forum with being sick and tired. I'm certainly not! And I'm sick and tired of being told that I am.

I'm okay with admins editing posts, but I would strongly prefer that they left a note saying that they did so in it's place. As for the wordfilter, I'm neutral on it, but I must say that there definitely are people who the 'a' word offends, including my entire family. I also tend to avoid using that word in speech, even if it doesn't bother me to hear it.