|I've finally figured out my politics||McAndrus|
Apr 22, 2003 12:29 PM
|as George Carlin said...||DougSloan|
Apr 22, 2003 12:38 PM
|"EVer notice that most of the women against abortion you wouldn't want to f*** anyway?"
I think most of the hot chicks are apolitical.
|doug, do you have that reversed? nm||ClydeTri|
Apr 22, 2003 12:41 PM
|no, that's basically it||DougSloan|
Apr 22, 2003 12:45 PM
|I think that Doug has become less moderate...||Spoke Wrench|
Apr 22, 2003 6:37 PM
|since he became the moderator.|
|Power corrupts. Absolute power corrupts absolutely? ;-) nm||McAndrus|
Apr 23, 2003 4:16 AM
Apr 23, 2003 6:38 AM
|None. Forgive me.||McAndrus|
Apr 23, 2003 7:17 AM
|Forgive me my sarcasm dear proctor. It was a small jest.|
Apr 23, 2003 7:21 AM
|I realize you were jesting, but I sincerely would want to know if anything thought I was screwing up.
|Do you have access to my email? (nm)||Spoke Wrench|
Apr 23, 2003 7:56 AM
|don't know what you mean||DougSloan|
Apr 23, 2003 7:59 AM
|If I had your email address, I don't recall it now.
Mine is firstname.lastname@example.org
|Actually, it turns out that I was wrong.||Spoke Wrench|
Apr 23, 2003 8:33 AM
|Before I emailed you, I took the time to reread an old thread. A comment that I had thought that you had made was actually posted by another individual. This is one of those cases in which I'm glad that I was mistaken.
I will go on record to say that I think that the George Carlin stuff you posted is pretty darn close to the line between good taste and otherwise.
|I don 't especially care, but I do wonder||OldEdScott|
Apr 23, 2003 8:38 AM
|why it's OK to post a web page with the F word liberally sprinked throughout, but when I try to say b!tch -- as in complain -- I get red-lettered and have to do a goofy exclamation point in place of the i.
It seems a little silly.
You can shift this to site suggestions, if you want.
Apr 23, 2003 9:13 AM
|When I mentioned George Carlin, I would think everyone is familiar enough with his work to know what to expect.
I'll concede, though, that maybe as moderator I might want to keep it a little more clean to set an example.
|Hell, I don't care. I was really just wondering about b!tch.||OldEdScott|
Apr 23, 2003 9:29 AM
|It seems milder than a lot of words the filter lets through.|
Apr 23, 2003 9:35 AM
|That word would not bother me, unless used as a direct insult to another Forum participant.
I have no idea how the word filter works, but I imagine the idea is to screen out the insults.
My view is that we keep it TV level. Thus, partially bleeped words and innuendo are ok, but not the "7 words you can't say on television" (but I think some are allowed now). To me, the use of a word is not nearly as bad as a direct insult to another member.
It's funny to me that I expected to be accused of being overly restrictive (I don't know why people thought this), then I'm the one accused of pushing the decency limits.
|I think that you're on the right track.||Spoke Wrench|
Apr 23, 2003 10:07 AM
|Individual words don't bother me at all. They're just words. I sometimes get bored with hearing the same word repeatedly. I used to tell my son that he was sounding like a "Chicken Man." (cluck, cluck, cluck etc.)
Referring to another individual in a derogatory manner is, I think, something we can and should do without.
The particular post that I took exception to was one which referred to Jessica Lynch by name and in a manner that I considered to be pornographic. That's just wrong. It, by the way, didn't use any bad words.
|Can you read my thoughts? (nm)||OldEdScott|
Apr 23, 2003 8:27 AM
|picture of a woman sensually sucking saddles||128|
Apr 23, 2003 10:32 AM
|Sorry to break in on your thoughts.
But speaking of censorship, was the pic of the woman sensually sucking the saddle allowed to remain on the general forum? I wondered but never bothered to find out. I thought that pic compared to what does get bleeped was potentially far more offensive to some people.
And now a few Soviet supressions for you: "MM MMM MMM MMMM!" -R.Williams
|that one stayed||DougSloan|
Apr 23, 2003 10:42 AM
|I think that one stayed. While suggestive, I don't think it was pornographic. I think I did add a warning to the topic line, though.
|"Suggestive" of what?||128|
Apr 23, 2003 10:52 AM
Not convinced it was not porno - graphic, nor that that really matters. When compared to a word or the use of a word intended to hurt, that picture, by the same measure as the censored word, was probably waaay more offensive to some.
|I know, but||DougSloan|
Apr 23, 2003 12:48 PM
|It's one of those line-drawing, "know it when I see it" problems. It wasn't strictly pornographic, in the sense that it revealed nudity or sexual acts. Swallowing a bicycle seat is not a sexual act. Of course, putting a "may be offensive" warning in the topic line probably GUARANTEES every single person will look at it, including everyone who might be offended.