Do Not Swear

[Admin]

I do not want swearing in this forum.

No fake swearing, no trying to get around the word filters. Unless you want to be punished or banned. I want this forum to be appropriate for all ages, I don't want this forum to be blocked by filtering software at schools or wherever.

If you want to get a point across that requires you to swear, swear normally. It will be blocked by the word filters. However, like TV bleeps, everyone will know what you mean. Except for the little innocent kids.

I hate you ****ing *******.

You know what I said don't you? If you don't know exactly what I said you get the general drift right? See, so why do you need to trick the word filters?

Don't do it.

[Stanislaw]

Its about time. Only the weak minded need to swear to get their point across.

[Munro]

In my opinion, swearing applies acceptably in colloquail discourse and the "f" word has a certain force that sometimes gets a point across casually or humourously. Only in arguments is swearing a sign of lack of education or thinking. It's an old rule anyway - once you've begun swearing you've lost the argument.

I have no problem with swearing, hell, I do it myself all day (but recently I've been trying to cut it down). It's not my site, not my rules, but I'd say to those who find swearing so gut-wrenching and upsetting to read need to tolerate what are really only four letter variations of an alphabet that ultimately is to be used at one's own desire or need. If that need is so rough and stupid, then it is the "swearers" problem that they find trouble in articulating their own thoughts. I want to avoid being a preacher, but the standards of todays' media requires a lot of tolerance.

[fayefaye]

I agree with munro... I think swearing in this forum has gotten more noticeable and common since filters were put in. Though I suppose some things are pretty inappropriate.

[Stanislaw]

I guess when you tell people not to do something, they do that thing more. To quote Oblex "These people are crazy"-tapping side of head-.

[fayefaye]

lol, I haven't read Asterix in aaaaaages.

[Stanislaw]

Man I love those cartoons. They were sooo cool.

[fayefaye]

Did you read that one with Cleopatra?

[crisaor]

There were more than one I think. Asterix & Cleopatra is probably the one you're referring to. I believe she appears on The Son of Asterix and one or two more. Great cartoons. I had the complete collection at one time...

[random_hero]

I think I swore once, sorry if I did. But I agree with the no swearing, but the F word does cary force that no other word can match. And it can make or break a joke. Its a risky word to use, so I generally stay away from it unless I am really angry.

[emily655321]

I'm pretty sure you can swear, as long as it's not gratuitous, and you respect the sovereignty of the asterisks. The point of this alert thread was after Abdo was banned, I think (right?), just to remind everyone else that you aren't allowed to fool the censor function by putting a space in the middle of a swear word so it gets through, or use numbers instead of letters... stuff like that.

[random_hero]

So is that who you think I am? Abdo?

[emily655321]

I had begun to suspect, but I've changed my mind. No, you're you. :D

[random_hero]

Well thank you. I like being me, so ****ing **** off you ****ing ****.

[random_hero]

Just kidding. I guess that is what emily655321 meant when she said "brass and confrontational" in regards to me...

[random_hero]

Can we say **** or ***? What about **** or **** or cooter?

[random_hero]

One of my words made it thru, so I asterisked it. Cooter is from TeleTubbies by the way.

[Stanislaw]

Man you have too much time.;)

[fayefaye]

There were more than one I think. Asterix & Cleopatra is probably the one you're referring to. I believe she appears on The Son of Asterix and one or two more. Great cartoons. I had the complete collection at one time...

You had the complete collection??? *drooling*

[shell]

To those who think that swearing is just part of the alphabet or another form of normal expression. I ask you these questions: Do you swear at your boss, clients or children when you want to "effectively" get your point across? If not, then you need to apply the same reasons why when "expressing" yourself here.

Also when being politely asked not to(whether in a forum or in social situations, it is appropriate manners to politely say ok.

[shell]

It means you should want someone to "think" that you are dumb knowing in your own mind that you aren't, rather than to say something (like you have) and let them know that in fact you are really dumb. "Let them think what they want, for I know the truth."

[crisaor]

You had the complete collection??? *drooling*
Yeah. I lost a few ones (the last ones published, the last ones I bought). And then I loaned two which weren't returned to this day. Still, it's a pretty decent collection. ;)

[subterranean]

To those who think that swearing is just part of the alphabet or another form of normal expression. I ask you these questions: Do you swear at your boss, clients or children when you want to "effectively" get your point across? If not, then you need to apply the same reasons why when "expressing" yourself here.

Also when being politely asked not to(whether in a forum or in social situations, it is appropriate manners to politely say ok.

I swore at my pc, many times..i swore at strangers who intentionally smoke in public places..obviously i can't get my point accros to these two "brainless" things

[Koa]

LOL @ sub.

Sometimes swearing can be appropriate... I wouldnt want a world where all is only politeness all the time... Of course it's a matter of sensibility and probably cleverness to know when to use the right way of expression...

[the mooring]

well ,i rarly swear once i say the truth but no one believe me

[Rebecca East]

Greetings from a new person. It is pleasant to find a forum where people can exchange ideas (in a polite way). I look forward to exploring the site and participating in book discussions!

[lucky_ducky609]

Don't swear just find words that mean the same thing but in a nice way.

[Prof]

2004.09.26 19:30(gmt+2)

5 minutes ago I have posted a thread titled "Treatise on Life." One of the main characters is a talking goat. In order to emphasize the oddity of a talking goat I, in the stead of stating that the goat (called Judas) looked at me, opined that "The goat ****ed me a beamer."

Upon later perusion, I noticed that the word ****ed now reads ***ked, and I thus changed it to co*ked, which still appears somewhat odd! ( c o c k e d me a beamer = pertaining to see or look).

I do support the administrator wholeheartedly, and thank him for rooting out willful swearing. However, if the intent is for a character to act according to his person, is it not possible that special permission can be acquired in advance from the administrator?

Myself being the moderator of three other forums, I appreciate the difficulty of such, and want to assure the administrator that should he decide not to let my "Treatise on Life" stand, it will be accepted as necessary.

Furthermore, I have unfortunately only read this thread pertaining to swear words after I have posted "Treatise."

Appreciatively your's,
Prof.

[Prof]

2004.09.27 19:45(gmt+2)

Complimentary to my previous post, it must be added that an administrator or moderator is under exceptional pressure regarding the safeguard of the site's intent. If only all the visitors adhere to such (intent), it might well be possible for the moderators to allow swearing, which will, ipso facto always be in context.

Unfortunately it is often a case of contributors pushing their 'luck." Thus the administrator is forced to adapt measures which also penalise those whose intent is most noble.

Of course there is a need for people to blow off steam, to let go with an expletive or two. But for that there are specific sites, or forums. I myself moderate one titled 'Insultingly Your's," where you only get deleted for being too "nice," or for demeaning women. Accordingly one must accept that utilising a specific site, obliges one to adhere to the rules of such.

Prof.

[Logos]

My very rudimentary understanding of this issue is, there is code used to recognise selected words chosen by Admin that he wishes to not see used here. It's across the boards, can't be selective, by member, it's an all or nothing thing.

I know a few get frustrated by this code when a selected words contains one of these words, or, is used in a seemingbly benign way, it still censors them. There's not much that can be done to get around this fact.

[amuse]

prof, admin is under pressure from no one but himself to disallow swearing. and though it may be in context, he prefers that it not appear here; we respect that, because this is, after all, a Wonderful site.

[Prof]

2004.09.28 17:30(gmt+2)

My dear Logos and Amuse,

Of course I abide wholeheartedly by your writs; even more decidedly so by the ever necessary rules, and specifically the intent of the Administrator. The latter being the most pertinent.

My "attitude" thus established, I, not for a moment, perceive that with the filtering of possible uncouth language do the Aministrator( whatever is his/ her name?) intent to stifle possible creativenes. Perusing said Administrator, and moderator's writs here, I am impressed with the helpful and friendly manner of such.

Which allows me to once more, in good faith, present an instance where the word filters might possibly be somewhat too effective. It, of course pertains to the male member of the fowl species (the opposite of a hen). The **** crows us awake, can indicate a self-assured person(****y), pertains to readying a revolver(****), can be a manner of addressing someone ( "And why so glum this morning, old ****?"), be the name of an establishment ( The "**** and bull" pub), or be slang for a specific action ( He ****ed me a beamer).

Of course the word can equally be utilised to express a vulgarity.

The conundrum now being that an instance may arise where the use of the c-word (either as part off, or on its own) is an integral part of a writ. However, the flow and intent of a paragraph may well be nullified by not allowing such.

Surely one would never, per example, have refused, say...Joseph Wambaugh, should he have wished to announce his novel "Black Marble" here? In it he introduces one to a cop whom would shame a pig! What a likeable character! Said cop is so disgusting that one can not wait for him to shock you once more. But estremely humane he is too.

The question thus being: Is there not even a remote possibility to accomodate members whose intent is above board? For instance, can the poster not submit his/her writ in advance to a moderator? It need not be the complete writ, only the paragraph or two which is contentious.

My experience is that sooner than later the authorities know eactly whom to accord pro forma permission. Please be assured that my intent is not to repeatedly flog a dead horse, and I shall willingly abide by whatever is decided.

Lastly, I must esxpress my sincerest appreciation for the privilege of being allowed to utilise such a meaningful site.

Prof.

[amuse]

it is probably my fault that the male rooster/overly egotistical person isn't allowed to be expressed as a four letter word. mea culpa...i seem to say this every month i think. i was vulgar at one point; vane had been misspelled as vein - (my mind went to weather vanes, otherwise known as, well) and i wrote the said word in a rather cheeky reply. and from the next day on, it was banned.

oof...and poof.
again, my apologies.

[baddad]

Hmmm.....me thinks that Joseph Wampaugh surely can and may express himself with as many vulgarities as he pleases. After all, he is not exactly churning out quality literature, but escape fiction. But this website strives for a little more quality, a little more verve than Joey aims for. Many users of this site are, or are being, well educated (not to mention fairly young) and need little use for substitutions where a more literate form of a word or expression may be used. Besides, anyone can utter curses, but it takes effort and ability to clearly communicate with the written word. Foul language only displays an inability to use a dictionary. I say save it for the street where it is more appreciated. And, yes, there is a time and place in literature where truth of reality may call for the use of colourful language. There is also a time and place for 'same' on the internet. This site is not one of them.

[amuse]

i can actually use a dictionary :p, and it was actually funny to reference "vein" (which was supposed to be "vane") in the manner i did. but that's old news.

[baddad]

The conundrum now being that an instance may arise where the use of the c-word (either as part off, or on its own) is an integral part of a writ. However, the flow and intent of a paragraph may well be nullified by not allowing such.

Prof.

Oh yah baby, the 'C' word!!! Covetous cornucopia! Copulate!Courtesan!Court! Curry, Cusp and cushy!! Curious cutless culling cursed customs. Customary cuttlefish's cute cutaneous cyst!! Cordially corny correspondence. Counter-revolution. Cow, crap, courage and convictions. And one of my particular favorites, contumacious!! Convinced??

[Scheherazade]

*bows to baddad

Thank you! I love your post!

[Prof]

2004.09.29 16:00(gmt+2)

My dear Baddad,
I most certainly appreciate, and equally laud your very considerate, thoroughly contemplated answer. However, it is preferable (and here I point the first finger at myself) that the utmost caution must be excercised not to let one's personal preferences interfere with one's sound judgement.

A tad of sarcasm often is not amiss either, but usually only serves to inflame an otherwise amicable "disagreement." Of course I can attempt to disprove your statement that "Foul language only displays an inability to use a dictionary," and substitute Wambaugh for Mailer, but such deviations will only serve to inflame an otherwise friendly discourse.

I have quite clearly, and repeatedly declared my unqualified support for the Administrator and moderators regarding the issue of uncouth language. However, I am sure that it is not deemed untoward to approach them regarding possible repercussions which might manifestate itself at a later stage. Surely we can accept that they welcome any approach regarding the site, provided such is performed in good faith, which is how I beg you to perceive my contribution.

Of course those of an impressible nature (children) must always be considered, but the "educated" visitors will appreciate that a character always acts or speaks within his or milieu. Besides, when telling fairy stories to the young ones, it is debateble whether or not it is to the child's advantage to end the story with "Then the prince married the princess, and they lived happily ever after." What about the reality of setbacks?

Equally so, is it kosher to present every character as a soft-speaking well behaved gentleman/lady?

Please do not conclude that I am an advocate of debauching literature, far from it. I only proposed that it might be possible for someone of noble intent to be penalised for the greater good, and whether it be possible for such to be circumvented by means of pre-emptive submission of contentious writs to a moderator?

Of course I respect your obvious determination in this regard, and should my enquiry be the cause of friction here, I would rather leave it be. Kindly accept that I am actually Afrikaans speaking, and might not always be able to express myself in such a manner as to compete with the very eloquent members here (like you!), which of course is no excuse.

Sincerely your's,
Prof.

[Scheherazade]

Being speaker of 3 languages myself, I tend to think that languages - especially English language - are rich enough in their vocabularies to enable us to carry on valuable and colourful discourses without resorting to offensive and less favourable/desirable/crude selections available.

However, this merely being my own humble opinion on the issue, I hereby apologise to those who disagree or are offended by my statement.

Yours Faithfully,

Scheherazade

[Logos]

Ok, well, Prof, you have some interesting ideas, especially regarding the possibility to submit potential posts to a moderator like me, or to Admin (//http://www.online-literature.com/forums/member.php?userid=3)

I don't know if he has time to deal with this, but I would be willing to discuss the idea with him if he thinks it's something he would like to see on his site.

You have to understand though, this issue of `censorship' or `dictatorship' as some have come to call it has come up many many times before on this forum. People have had entire posts and topics locked censored or deleted. Most of the members who have been here for a few months have seen some sort of debate/discussion go on about it.

There are still rules to adhere to, to maintain the integrity and `vision' of this site; that being online literature texts accessible to anyone, any age, any language or background. The forums here are a bonus, a place for discussion of said literature.

Mods and Admin do not always see each and every post made here, some things go under our moderation radar, which is a good reason why such selective `bleeping out' of words is done automatically.

The fact is, some words are not allowed here. That is a fact. However it does bring up this most subjective discussion and debate at times, sarcastic or not, where there are no definitive answers, everyone has an opinion about it, and while I'm happy to see discussion about it, and appreciate your input, it still may not change the facts.

There are also many free online blog hosting websites where you can post your unvarnished writing, maybe this is something for you to consider too? Then you could post about it and invite your own form of discussion there?

[Prof]

2004.09.29 21:00(gmt+2)

My dear Scheherazade,
Divulging English to be my second language was solely intended to explain possible misconceptions which might have arised by my rather inadequate presentation of exceptions to a rule which we all are in agreement upon.

Of course the English language, consisting of approximately 280 000, compared to my Afrikaans' 90 000 words lends itself to discourses without the aid of undesirable words. That is a given, but unfortunately irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

The crux being that an "undesirable" character will express him/herself in a manner most probably unacceptable to you. However, that does not indicate that such a character does not exist. Now, if such a character is central to a tale, must we deny
the reality of such?

Which bring us to the relate by Logos: I wholeheartedly support him in everything he strive to maintain, and is ever so thankful that he do listen, appreciate, and undertake to get clarity on the matter. Such indeed are those in a position of authority, whom exercise their discretion with compassion.

I have stated my case, and willingly trust Logos to exercise his discretion in a fair manner. Whatever such decision might be, I shall support, even if such might not be quite what I have hoped for.

Thus I thank you all for suffering me in a manner most becoming.

Sincerely your's,
Prof.

[amuse]

i think swearing can be effective as Prof says, when it is in character. or when used for effect/emphasis, rather like an actor on stage turning his back on the audience, which is almost never done.

yes we can all say whatever needs to be said without swearing, and some of us can do a mighty fine job of using other words/phrases to greater effect. but in writing, it has its place. which is not to say i advocate it in real life.

[Prof]

2004.09.30 05:45 (gmt+2)

My dear Amuse,
What, have you now become a member of the literary Light Brigade? Only joking of course!

In passing one might mention that some years ago, at one of our more renowned universities (Universiteit van die Oranje Vrystaat) a lady researcher undertook dedicated research about swearing! At the time I did read it, and revealing it most certainly was, in as much I understood it to indicate that perceptions future very pertinently.

My pleasant visit to this thread served to underscore such, and I want to assure everyone who "took me to task!" that I am only the piano player, whom will happily play a tune everyone is comfortable with.

Of course I do not concur 100% with my "detractors!" But, after all is said and done, they definitely are more equal than I am!

Appreciatively your's,
Prof.

[baddad]

Hmmmm....... Didn't the Light Brigade (all 600 of them) get slaughtered in a canyon?

[amuse]

And what a GLORIOUS ****ing way to die. :p

well, maybe i'll decline that subtitle, aye? ;)

btw, a long overdue "Welcome to the forum, Prof." :)

[Prof]

2004.09.30 22:20(gmt+2)

My dear Baddad,
Ah, I could bow to you for remembering the charge. The actuality being: "The charge occurred during the battle of Balaklava in the Crimean War, when 658 British cavalrymen, acting on a misinterpreted order, rode for more than a mile under heavy fire to attack Russian artillery positions, killed the gunners, then retreated, having lost 110 dead, 180 wounded or taken prisoner and 475 horses killed."

Said being an excerpt from a post by Dee (whom resides in England) at a forum titled "Historically Your's."

But of course we all remember it in accordance with Tennyson's poignant poem:
"Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward,
All in the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
'Forward, the Light Brigade!
Charge for the guns!' he said:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.

The actuality being:(from the same forum)
"Like all wars it was a long time in the making, and can be indirectly ascribed to the "benign" Turkish occupation of Palestine, whos ruler accorded various powers "rights" to protect the Christians and their Churches. Amongst such was the church of Nativity which soon became a bone of contention between Napoleon 3 (whom seeked to politically pacify a specific grouping) and the Russian Tsar. It all came to pass when the turkish ruler painted himself into a corner by bestowing the right of protection to both powers, which eventually left him with no option but to declare war on Russia, an endeavour in which she soon was joined by France and Brittain, the latter to protect her global interests.

The reader must realise that, as in any war the facts are somewhat muddled, decidedly more so in this instance where the personalities of the commanding officers were to play a major role. The main protagonists in this reversed Dickenesque tale of misguided heroics were the youthful Captain Lewis Edward Nolan, whom ( from most accounts) came across as unreasonably arrogant. A superb horseman whom has written extensively on cavalry tactics, and adc to the Quartermaster-General, Brigadier Airey. Military commanders might well have been overly in awe of him, what with Lord George Paget pronouncing thus: "....and was a great man in his own estimation...."

Lord Raglan, on the heights with a clear view of the enfolding battle, and Lords Lucan, Paget and Colonel Cardigan down in the valley amongst the troops. Four gentlemen of the old "Ours' is not to reason why, our's is but to do or die" school. Thus it was that when Lord Raglan dispatched Nolan into the valley of infamy with orders to advance with the intent to attack, Lord Lucan, upon receiving the order from Captain Nolan, and had had read it, enquired: "Where are we to advance to?' Captain Nolan pointed with his finger to the line of the Russians, and said, 'There are the enemy, and there are the guns', or words to that effect, according to statements made after his death...

The reader is well advised to remember that the the protagonists in the valley were unable to globally assess the situation, a fact which can be deduced by Lord Lucan's question.

Cardigan, upon receiving his instructions from Lucan replied: "Certainly, Sir, but allow me to point out to you that the Russians have a battery in the valley in our front, and batteries and riflemen on each flank."

"I know it," replied Lucan. 'But Lord Raglan will have it. We have no choice but to obey.'

It can well be argued that Lucan, being far senior to Nolan, should have stood up to the latter. But, that would ipso facto imply that he questions the orders of a superior officer. Extremely ungentlemanly. Accordingly the charge of the light brigade ensued, against the better judgement of those officers directly in command. Splendidly did they ride to their death, ever so gallant in their red and blue uniforms, following orders, as personified by Cardigan's statement to Raglan: 'My Lord, I hope you will not blame me, for I received the order to attack from my superior officer in front of the troops.'

In conclusion I propose that the ultimate blame for this magnificent blunder be laid at the door of the commander on the heights, as most historians concur that the orders for the battle were issued without considering the limitations those in the valley burdened under."

Of course I have permission to reproduce the above here.

Prof.

[BSturdy]

That became an incredibly interesting thread - despite its censorious origins

How does a punishment work on a forum?

[Logos]

Not sure what you mean by `punishment'?




How does a punishment work on a forum?

[Jay]

BSturdy:
There's none as far as I know, the filters won't let the words show.

Logos:
BSturdy might be reffering to punishment for going 'round the rules maybe?

[BSturdy]

Unless you want to be punished or banned
..........

[Stanislaw]

Maybe restricted access... or maybe they will come to your house and personally kick your ***, just kidding!

:D

[subterranean]

well maybe a pop up of forum rules everytime he/she log in

[BSturdy]

Or maybe having to login as *login* plus - I must not swear I must not swear I must not swear I must not swear I must not swear I must not swear - 100 times!

[Stanislaw]

I like that one :)

[subterranean]

Oh Bsturdy, that's very cruel of you ;)

[Jay]

Well, copy-pasting works even for logins ;)

[baddad]

Maybe restricted access... or maybe they will come to your house and personally kick your ***, just kidding!

:D

hahaHAAA..., but ****** thats funny stuff!!! You guys kill me..........but don't come to my house.........

[Jay]

We have no need to, have our ways... other then going round the world kicking ***es... ever got an electric jolt from your keyboard? No? Well, consider yourself warned, dear baddad... *need a cute 'Satan laughts his *** off' smiley* :D

[Stanislaw]

indeed, this has turn into the *** thread.

HiJaCkEd

[Riddick]

***, ****, ****, damn which words are censored.?

[crisaor]

There seems to be much hijacking around the forums these days...

[Stanislaw]

Not so fast kitty, HiJaCkEd, I win. :D

[subterranean]

Carefull Stan, admin would possibly make new rule about this hijacking thing..

[Stanislaw]

arrr I hope not, but perhaps he might, considerin I HiJaCkEd his no swearin thread... arrr that be a coup ;)

[crisaor]

Didn't the ninjas win the poll? ;)

[Scheherazade]

Didn't the ninjas win the poll? ;)

The poll? The Pole???

[Stanislaw]

Arrr they thought they did, but then I won, damn ninjas. ;) , made the walk yonder plank.

[Riddick]

what ninjas?

[subterranean]

long story....search the ninja vs...(ouhm i forgot) thread and you'll understand ( i think)

[Jay]

There you go :p

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2353&highlight=ninja

[Stanislaw]

lol, I had forgotten about the ninja sight...

[xiaoxie]

Can we say **** or ***? What about **** or **** or cooter?


it's interestly

[Stanislaw]

cooter??? what be this newfangled inwention?

[subterranean]

Where do you learn to read and write anywayz?

[Stanislaw]

From: startrek, jabba the hut, and monkey!! :banana:

[subterranean]

Shhh Aliens...they're going to take us soon...

[Stanislaw]

http://www.catallarchy.net/blog/cgi-bin/archives/aliens.jpg
or
http://www.prisma-online.de/image/97/mm55295ff92a00ee97.jpeg

:D :alien:

[Scheherazade]

Mars Attacks was a good movie me thinks... Me likey

[papayahed]

Mars Attacks was a godo movie me thinks... Me likey

One of the few DVDs I own.

[Stanislaw]

It was a funny funny movie, those brains are just too much! :D

[subterranean]

OMG Stan...

[Stanislaw]

OMG Stan...
heh heh, uhm yesh? :p

[Miss Darcy]

Oh yah baby, the 'C' word!!! Covetous cornucopia! Copulate!Courtesan!Court! Curry, Cusp and cushy!! Curious cutless culling cursed customs. Customary cuttlefish's cute cutaneous cyst!! Cordially corny correspondence. Counter-revolution. Cow, crap, courage and convictions. And one of my particular favorites, contumacious!! Convinced??

Convincing. Crazy cussing couldn't come cheap. Celestial celery, cold cauliflower, and crowning carp. Commited Celtic Catholics couldn't cremate a cupid.

Okay, fine, that is getting rather...crazy. But to the point: I despise swearing. Well, I don't mind um well - let's just say the variant of Hades :D - that is, the opposite of heaven...as an interjection, not so much, it's just very...expressive. But other things, like the S word and the F word, and the P word and, *drum roll* the C word, er, both C words? - Well I can hardly tolerate them. (I don't mind the C.R. C word so much, probably because my friend uses it all the time...)

I find it terrible to see so many school kids swearing. And my friends! - But it's worse with adults, because, if you think about it, swearing is so...juvenile, it will never help, never diminish your annoyance. I do say "bother" quite vehemently sometimes, and it is a little relieving, I guess, but that's just a little thing. When I was little I was taught to not even say "hate" and "stupid" (due to the vindictive tone sometimes used with these words), and still generally avoid using them.

I could go on and on on this subject! :) - but I won't bore you further. Basically, I don't agree with swearing, like, with bad swearing (what swearing is good anyway?!); and I detest (see!) books that use it a lot. It really puts me off. Like "2007" by Robyn Williams. You can't get anywhere without the P word, the F word, oh the A word...so frustrating.

Anyway. *angelic smile*

-Miss Darcy

[Scheherazade]

Okay, fine, that is getting rather...crazy. But to the point: I despise swearing. Well, I don't mind um well - let's just say the variant of Hades :D - that is, the opposite of heaven...as an interjection, not so much, it's just very...expressive. But other things, like the S word and the F word, and the P word and, *drum roll* the C word, er, both C words? - Well I can hardly tolerate them. (I don't mind the C.R. C word so much, probably because my friend uses it all the time...)


Hmph! You got me there! I don't think I can decode all those words! Should get a Dictionary of Swear Words or something! :D

[baddad]

I'm told that swearing is the visible and audible effect of a limited vocabulary........and for the sake of language everywhere....... I pooh-pooh its use.

[Miss Darcy]

Hmph! You got me there! I don't think I can decode all those words! Should get a Dictionary of Swear Words or something! :D

Ah, well ;), I don't think that would be necessary. There's not really much fun in knowing those words...they're usually just vulgar references to - vulgar things, really. Things that certainly usually wouldn't come into normal speech.

I agree with Baddad; :thumbs_up next time I hear someone swearing I'll tell them they've got a limited vocabulary. :D

[Scheherazade]

That is exactly what I tell them too... I say 'if I can appreciate English although it is not my first laguage, you should be able to do better than me'...

[baddad]

I repeat........poo....poo.

[subterranean]

limited vocabulary?

[baddad]

......Si' amigo.....

[subterranean]

Wait a minute, I'm a person who has limited vocabs just because I swear?

[Miss Darcy]

*Timidly* no one said that.... :D

[Stanislaw]

:D I think swearing excessivly, and pointlessly to be a sign of small vocabulary. Besides, !@#$!@#%$^% gets the point across in a lighthearted unofensive, if not humorous manner!

[baddad]

Stanislaw's location is a ....sparkle, a vibration, a glitter, a coruscation??

[Jay]

I think I can say I swear from time to time (ahem) and my vocabulary IS limited, severely.

[subterranean]

Yeah...and who's that in the avy? Grandpa Wlad?



Stanislaw's location is a ....sparkle, a vibration, a glitter, a coruscation??

[Stanislaw]

Yeah...and who's that in the avy? Grandpa Wlad?

Nope, it be Red Green (www.redgreen.com) :D

[subterranean]

Oh, He must be not that popular...I don't know him..

[Stanislaw]

Well, he is mostly popular in Canada, and his show can be found on cbc (canadian broadcasting coorperation) channel! Its a really cool show, very funny!

[Stanislaw]

heh, this sticky has had nearly 100 posts, lol :D

[subterranean]

And you always be the last poster..:D

Oppsie now it's me ;)

[baddad]

...oh You Crazy Kids...

[Stanislaw]

Sorry pop, well settle down! :D

[Kilini]

Why the )*&^ did you @#$# ever !!#$^ing (*&^ with my @$%^! How @$#^ing stupid can you little @#$% GET! You son of a #$%^&! #$^&ing @#$%&@#.

Now that's stupid swearin'. Most teenagers seem to think it's compulsory, though. But I don't mind using the f word sometimes, myself. Just not like that.

[Stanislaw]

hahahahahaha

Actually I find filling in the #$%^ symbols gets the foul point across in a lighthearted humorous way, yet clearly states ones passion on the subject in the simplest of terms!

nicely said friend! :nod:

[i_rock_poems]

WHy should little kids be in chat things anyway? Isn't that why we have parents?!?

[IWilKikU]

welcome to the 21st my friend.

[Scheherazade]

Probably parents themselves are too busy chatting to keep an eye on the kids :p

[Jay]

Is it really that difficult to avoid using foul language when typing? Might be just me... if someone really feels like going round word filters, use PMs.

[Stanislaw]

heh, that is true, but usually most of the foul mouth's are foul mouthed kids. :D

[PistisSophia]

I try to always be aware of the use of uncouth language and stop it when and as much as I can.

I was a former "Cursing Queen" and I changed that real quick!!!

[Stanislaw]

hmmm...cursing queen, young and sweet, only 17...

lol :D

[Bongitybongbong]

Probably parents themselves are too busy chatting to keep an eye on the kids :p
Ther's the answer of the week.

[Stanislaw]

lol, wouldn't be embaressing to chat with ones own offspring. :lol:

[Bongitybongbong]

I'm thinking that would be pretty funny if the kid was using many slurs or swears and the parent found out that was their kid.

[Koa]

LOL Stan, lovely signature :)

[Stanislaw]

LOL Stan, lovely signature :)
heh heh, always cracks me up. :D

[Koa]

but you changed it now!!!

[Jack_Aubrey]

haha, Daleks rule.

[scruffy_danny]

Daleks are ace!

[amuse]

along with the swearing, which occasionally approaches overkill dimensions at work, i find it horrendous to hear people refer to those they're discussing as "white" "black" "light-skinned" etc. i actually ended a friendship once with someone who couldn't stop labeling people and it's very hard to work with persons who don't describe others by their personality. though even "big" "skinny" "tall" "freckled" "bespectacled" would be fine with me. :bawling: i hate this part of my job.

[Stanislaw]

haha, Daleks rule.

Thanks! Like Doctor Who?

[Stanislaw]

along with the swearing, which occasionally approaches overkill dimensions at work, i find it horrendous to hear people refer to those they're discussing as "white" "black" "light-skinned" etc. i actually ended a friendship once with someone who couldn't stop labeling people and it's very hard to work with persons who don't describe others by their personality. though even "big" "skinny" "tall" "freckled" "bespectacled" would be fine with me. :bawling: i hate this part of my job.

I quite agree, I work at an immagrant serving agency, and I find it stupid that racism still exists in world today. But, it does prove the theory that People are stupid! Discrimination based on ones skin colour is retarded, well except in the case of those people who use the fake tan lotion stuff, and end up looking like outcasts from the original charly and the chocolate factory movie (fake tanned people are scary :D )

Also, I have never met a person with "white" skin or "black" skin, I never eally understood those labels "white" people aren't even close to white (well with the exception of Albinos) and "blacl" people aren't black, so where do these labes come from?????

'Hang in there Amuse! :thumbs_up

[AimusSage]

Although I realise it might be a sensitive subject for some, I consider black, white, etc. to be no different than Big, Small, Tall, etc. For me it is just a description of the person physical appearance. In no way does it has racist meaning to me. The actuall namecalling based on someones skin colour is however not a good thing, but if used in a descriptive manner, I do not see a problem with it. Although immediately the question rises as to where the dividing line is between discription and name calling.

[rachel]

I guess the thing is this:no one held a gun to our heads to join this site. And if those are the rules than those are the rules. If we don't agree or don't appreciate the whys well then we are free to find someplace else to talk and vent.
To me it is a no brainer.

"What embitters the world is not the excess of criticism but the absence of self criticism." G.K. Chesterton

[BigDaddy_GFS]

Oohhhhh......And here I was, honing my profane verbage to a keen razor's edge...enough to make Al Pacino blush!!!!!

[Stanislaw]

Oohhhhh......And here I was, honing my profane verbage to a keen razor's edge...enough to make Al Pacino blush!!!!!

lol, tougher than jack palance on a bad day? :thumbs_up http://archives.cnn.com/2001/SHOWBIZ/Movies/03/15/oscar.moments/link.palance.jpg

[starrwriter]

I do not want swearing in this forum.

No fake swearing, no trying to get around the word filters. Unless you want to be punished or banned. I want this forum to be appropriate for all ages, I don't want this forum to be blocked by filtering software at schools or wherever.

It's your forum and I have no problem with swear words being filtered out with asterisks. But do you really think young children are interested in literature? I doubt it. As far as teenagers, they have heard it all before.

[Nightshade]

ohh sorry got to disagree :D
( sorry in an argumentitive mood :rolleyes: )
anyway I was more or less a clean slate for most swear words till I was what 16 didnt live in the western world :D
;)

[Logos]

It's your forum and I have no problem with swear words being filtered out with asterisks. But do you really think young children are interested in literature? I doubt it. As far as teenagers, they have heard it all before.

Well we have had _young_ kids here.

What if a young kids' parents were to see that their kid was looking at/reading some `adult content' or swear words on this site?

not cool.

You might have noticed also that there are a number of people who come here just to hang out, not get into deep discussion about literature :)

[baddad]

mmmm....literature.............or just hanging out........................at..................... ..... literatureonlineliteratureonlineliteratureonli.... .................mmmmmmm......... *drool*................... (...sounds of drool being sucked back in...'wetslurpyintakewhistle' sound.....).......

[Logos]

I'd suggest a bib for that leak you have there baddad :p

[baddad]

....Whew!!!.......tough crowd...................

[Koa]

It's your forum and I have no problem with swear words being filtered out with asterisks. But do you really think young children are interested in literature? I doubt it. As far as teenagers, they have heard it all before.

Well...I read much more than now when I was a child until I was 15-16... I sometimes feel like I'm here based on my past, cos I havent read that much, at least for fun, in ages... I intend to change that soon but since I have many other interests, such as music and forums, I doubt I'll read 4 or 5 books per week as I did at primary school...

Though by the time I was 10-11 I had heard all the possible swearwords from people of my age anyway... I guess it's fair to ban swearing in a forum as it tries to keep a polite and respectful atmosphere (can you imagine someone starting to insult people etc...), anyway if I want to make my point I can hide a swearing between asterisks and those who are old enough ;) would understand :D

[jakobin]

ok i doubt that 'young' kids are not going to pick up on asterik'ed out. nowadays world isnt that hard to work out, and cant be blocked out by asterik's.

at the same time, it is difficult to stop swearing completely. but yeah, its a good idea.

[jakobin]

ok i doubt that 'young' kids are not going to pick up on asterik'ed out. they are not dumb :confused: nowadays world isnt that hard to work out, and cant be blocked out by asterik's.

at the same time, it is difficult to stop swearing completely. but yeah, its a good idea. :thumbs_up

[Stanislaw]

er, why is jakobin banned?

[emily655321]

I've been waiting for an answer to this one, and it hasn't come yet. I want to know, too: Why does it say "banned" under Jakobin's name?

[Pensive]

emily, You know that Jakobin is um......dead.....

Thats why there is a "banned" under Jacobin thread.

[The Unnamable]

Language is a powerful tool for social control. Orwell knew this when he wrote ‘1984’. In that totalitarian society, it is considered a positive achievement when each successive edition of the ‘Doublespeak’ dictionary has fewer words. The fewer words we have to express ourselves, the easier it is to prevent any thoughts that might challenge the authorities that control us.

It’s interesting to consider this discussion in the context of the debate about British poet Tony Harrison’s ‘V’, which was chosen as a set text for 16-18 year old students in the U.K. a few years ago. The poem can be seen here - http://plagiarist.com/poetry/5618/ Be warned, however, it does contain a very large number of swear words and the above site does not apply censorship to works of Art. The responses to the poem (which can be seen at length in the comments posted on the poem) are pertinent to what is being discussed here. Not surprisingly, the British tabloid newspapers pounced immediately and warned of the destruction of Western Civilisation. Channel 4 added to the controversy when they broadcast a filmed reading of the poem, made by former National Theatre Director, Richard Eyre. 'FOUR-LETTER TV POEM FURY!' was one predictable headline.

Harrison grapples with the problem of the relationship between language and class. The skinhead in the poem is dispossessed and alienated and so easily marginalised. Many of the assumptions above appear to be that swearing is a sign of lack of education. Words that offend middle class respectability are only used by the inarticulate and uneducated, it would seem. Harrison himself met with such snobbery when first published. His name is Tony Harrison but when The Times first printed one of his poems, it called him ‘Anthony’ Harrison. Tony is too working class a name to be that of a poet, apparently. The Times was not being self-consciously snobbish (they simply didn’t realise that he was Tony); that’s the way that hegemony works.

The issue is even more interestingly addressed in one of Harrison’s very moving poems about the death of his mother. I’ll post it but know that asterisks will appear:

Book Ends

I

Baked the day she suddenly dropped dead
we chew it slowly that last apple pie.

Shocked into sleeplessness you're scared of bed.
We never could talk much, and now don't try.

You're like book ends, the pair of you, she'd say,
Hog that grate, say nothing, sit, sleep, stare…

The 'scholar' me, you, worn out on poor pay,
only our silence made us seem a pair.

Not as good for staring in, blue gas,
too regular each bud, each yellow spike.

At night you need my company to pass
and she not here to tell us we're alike!

Your life's all shattered into smithereens.

Back in our silences and sullen looks,
for all the Scotch we drink, what's still between 's
not the thirty or so years, but books, books, books.

II

The stone's too full. The wording must be terse.
There's scarcely room to carve the FLORENCE on it--

Come on, it's not as if we're wanting verse.
It's not as if we're wanting a whole sonnet!

After tumblers of neat Johnny Walker
(I think that both of us we're on our third)
you said you'd always been a clumsy talker
and couldn't find another, shorter word
for 'beloved' or for 'wife' in the inscription,
but not too clumsy that you can't still cut:

You're supposed to be the bright boy at description
and you can't tell them what the **** to put!

I've got to find the right words on my own.

I've got the envelope that he'd been scrawling,
mis-spelt, mawkish, stylistically appalling
but I can't squeeze more love into their stone.


I think that last stanza says what needs to be said here (NOT the ONLY thing that needs to be said, may I add). Although his father uses an expletive and is lacking the ability to express himself with elegance, the love he feels is no less real. I’m not saying that the rules are wrong or that anyone should have the right to break them. However, I do think that we should think about why such rules are made and what it tells us about the way we, as human beings, construct our communities and societies. Personally, I believe it has nothing to do with morality. It’s about power – in this case, commercial power. Shouldn’t we at least consider this possibility, even while recognising that the rules are sacrosanct? That way we can actually have some genuine thought about the issues rather than simply expressing outrage or approval.

PS I did a search on the online ‘Ulysses’ available on this site and found, I’m glad to say, that it has not been censored.

[Scheherazade]

er, why is jakobin banned?Jakobin is not banned but his account has been closed out of respect and I have opened a new account for his girl friend, Lisa, to use. It would have been upsetting for some members to see his account active all the time.


The Unnamable> Swearing directed at other members is a form of abuse and will never be welcome in this Forum.

[The Unnamable]

The Unnamable> Swearing directed at other members is a form of abuse and will never be welcome in this Forum.

Perhaps you are entirely unaware that you are doing it but I find such terse assumptions of moral superiority both offensive and rude. Why did you need to tell me, patronisingly, that swearing “is a form of abuse” as if I am some naughty schoolboy who doesn’t understand? I once lived with a woman who had been the subject of real abuse, not name-calling on an Internet Forum. Her brutal and bullying husband regularly beat her to a pulp. Your attempt to justify delight in your own moral stance by equating ‘swearing’ at someone with forcibly knocking out his or her teeth is objectionable.

Also, is such dismissal all my comments were worth? At no point did I advocate swearing at any member of the forum. I gave a well considered, pertinent and, I hope, thoughtful response to the original topic. Most of us don’t have your privilege of deleting what we don’t like and I, for one, think that you forget that with such privileges comes the responsibility for fairness.

I didn’t send this as a PM partly for the same reason you didn’t with your comment directly addressed to me. I also hope that it’s relevant to the topic and the issues I have raised – making people question why such censorship exists and the true nature of the authority keeping us under surveillance.

[RobinHood3000]

Unnamable, Scher's a Moderator--you accepted that fact by registering on the forums. She's not making any assumptions with regards to moral superiority, she's exercising the authority to which you consented and is using it to enforce the rules of the forums, to which you also consented.

[Anon22]

Perhaps you are entirely unaware that you are doing it but I find such terse assumptions of moral superiority both offensive and rude. Why did you need to tell me, patronisingly, that swearing “is a form of abuse” as if I am some naughty schoolboy who doesn’t understand? I once lived with a woman who had been the subject of real abuse, not name-calling on an Internet Forum. Her brutal and bullying husband regularly beat her to a pulp. Your attempt to justify delight in your own moral stance by equating ‘swearing’ at someone with forcibly knocking out his or her teeth is objectionable.

Also, is such dismissal all my comments were worth? At no point did I advocate swearing at any member of the forum. I gave a well considered, pertinent and, I hope, thoughtful response to the original topic. Most of us don’t have your privilege of deleting what we don’t like and I, for one, think that you forget that with such privileges comes the responsibility for fairness.

I didn’t send this as a PM partly for the same reason you didn’t with your comment directly addressed to me. I also hope that it’s relevant to the topic and the issues I have raised – making people question why such censorship exists and the true nature of the authority keeping us under surveillance.

Ah, it appears I didn't read entirely what you had said in your post before. I completely take Scheherazade's side in this case after reading the post. It appears that in a way you are saying that swearing isn't bad, therefore Scheherazade is saying otherwise (swearing towards others is indeed offensive).

[Stanislaw]

The dasterdly Stan's takes the side o the moderator-lass.

[Scheherazade]

Perhaps you are entirely unaware that you are doing it but I find such terse assumptions of moral superiority both offensive and rude. But of course, I am like that!

The Admin especially asked for someone with impeccable morals and attitude when he wrote to the Mother Superior at the Convent to find a Moderator for the site!


On a serious note, the rules of the Forum were there before I joined and I agree with them heartily because we have members as young as 12 on this Forum and it is good to have a set of rules which are applicable to everybody to keep the Forum running smoothly.

Thank you for all your support however this is not a matter of personal preferences. Like Robin pointed out when we become members, we all agree to the terms and rules which are put in place by the Admin.

[starrwriter]

But of course, I am like that! The Admin especially asked for someone with impeccable morals and attitude when he wrote to the Mother Superior at the Convent to find a Moderator for the site!
I suspected Scher had a nunnery in her background all this time.
(heh heh)

I agree with Mark Twain: cuss words are some of the best in the English language when used appropriately and in moderation.

[Nightshade]

But still arent sutible for young people.
I had the shock of my life last year in the corridor at school this tiny angelic lookingh 11 year with a mouth on her that was well, shall we say the air became so blue that visbilty dropped?
((g))
:D

[Virgil]

Well, I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. I guess I learn foul language pretty early. By sixth grade, which is roughly 11 years old, I remember swearing around worst than a sailor. Of course never at home. Just with the boys. I've since washed out my vocabulary, at least most of the time.

[RobinHood3000]

I agree with starr. Even though it has been said that "Profanity is the product of an unsophisticated mind," geniuses like Quentin Tarantino and Robin Williams can use it occasionally, even profusely, but to powerful effect.

[Virgil]

I don't know. It seemed profound when I was eleven years old. It doesn't seem too profound now.

Hey, maybe that's Robin's age (eleven). Oh that's on another thread.

[Logos]

Also, is such dismissal all my comments were worth? At no point did I advocate swearing at any member of the forum. I gave a well considered, pertinent and, I hope, thoughtful response to the original topic. Most of us don’t have your privilege of deleting what we don’t like and I, for one, think that you forget that with such privileges comes the responsibility for fairness.


Moderators are here to oversee behaviour and content according to the rules set forth by our benevolent dictator Admin :)

We do not edit/delete posts or close topics because we feel like it, it's because they are violation of rules. Sure the rules are subject to our interpretation at times, there are grey areas, but I know Scher and myself try to be as fair as possible at all times.

And heck ya it's great to swear at times, it can be a form of `venting' frustration, but out of respect to Admin, to the children that participate here, and everyone else I refrain.

[starrwriter]

Well, I grew up in Brooklyn, New York. I guess I learn foul language pretty early. By sixth grade, which is roughly 11 years old, I remember swearing around worst than a sailor. Of course never at home.
In the small town in Michigan where I grew up, we learned how to swear profusely by age 11. But, like you, I never did it at home. My mother was a conservative Kentucky woman and she kept a bar of soap within reach at all times. Even when I was a middle-aged man, she would freak out if I let a curse word slip out in her presence. My old man was foul-mouthed and she never said a word to him. Go figure.

[Virgil]

In the small town in Michigan where I grew up, we learned how to swear profusely by age 11. But, like you, I never did it at home. My mother was a conservative Kentucky woman and she kept a bar of soap within reach at all times. Even when I was a middle-aged man, she would freak out if I let a curse word slip out in her presence. My old man was foul-mouthed and she never said a word to him. Go figure.

He must of set her straight at one point. She didn't want you to grow up to be the same. Age eleven must also be significant.

[Pensive]

I am strongly against swearing, especially in a public forum.

Well, I will say that when I was 12, I came to know what **** meant and it created a lot of confusions in me. Now, I feel in a matter of a year, I have grown up a lot but still, it does not allow me to use strong words like **** or even words like b***s***

[The Unnamable]

I tried to get back to this much earlier but this is the first time I’ve been able to get access to the site.

Is my prose style really so turgid and confusing as to prevent comprehension? I will try once again to make myself clear. I do not advocate, or ask for, swearing on the site. I didn’t swear at or about anyone. Nowhere have I said anything that could even suggest that this was in any way the point of what I was saying. You seem to be assuming that I am moaning about not being allowed to swear. I’m not. I suspect, however, that my prose style has nothing to do with my point not being recognised. My complaint was about being patronised for expressing views that appear not to have been properly considered. This, however, didn’t offend me as much as the selection of a deliberately emotive word, ‘abuse’, to equate my view with that of a thug.


Digital Crash, you say, “It appears that in a way you are saying that swearing isn't bad”. Firstly, so what if I am? Am I not allowed to think differently about the use of such words, while at the same time accepting that I won’t be using them? Are our thoughts to be controlled as well as our actions? That is a very dangerous precedent to set and one you can learn more about by reading Orwell’s ‘1984’, especially in the sections relating to the concept of ‘Thoughtcrime’. However, the vagueness in your statement (‘It appears’, ‘in a way’) should alert others to the possibility that this is not what I am saying. I am happy to answer for what I have said but not for what it would be most convenient for your argument to assume that I had said.

Robin, your response,

“Scher's a Moderator--you accepted that fact by registering on the forums. She's not making any assumptions with regards to moral superiority, she's exercising the authority to which you consented and is using it to enforce the rules of the forums, to which you also consented.”

is completely irrelevant to what I’d said. If you disagree with me, fine, but at least disagree with what I’ve said, not what you inaccurately assume I have said. Your point in itself raises an interesting question in the wider context. To what extent are we obliged to honour our acceptance of any authority if that authority abuses its power? Such questions are the subject of a great deal of the Literature represented on this site.

You seemed to like Orwell, if I remember correctly. I am reminded of Squealer’s response in ‘Animal Farm’ every time the other animals dared to voice any challenge to their treatment – “Surely, none of you wishes to see Jones back?” Of course they don’t, but that wasn’t their point. Squealer's job is to explain things away. His master gives the first example of propaganda tactics: "What is going to happen to all that milk? said someone ... Never mind the milk, comrades! ... The harvest is more important" (p.24). An important question is brushed aside by focusing on the excitement of the harvest. Already, the principle of equality and fair play has gone.

It might seem extremely forced and contrived to use ‘Animal Farm’ as an analogy. This is an Internet Forum, not a Soviet Gulag. I agree, but I also believe that Literature (if it is to justify being something we teach) should be relevant to the here and now. Characters like Squealer appear in books because they surround us in our ‘real’ lives. Most of us will not face the agonising decisions that have to be made by people persecuted for their beliefs: We will however, on a much smaller scale, face the every day life equivalents of these choices.

Personally, swearing doesn’t bother me but that’s not the point. The discussion seemed to me to have covered many of the expected areas that such a topic would inevitably generate so I thought it might be interesting to take a different direction. For me, this is called ‘thinking’. As someone whose livelihood is dependent on language, I thought it would be worth considering why certain words are classified as unsuitable. This is why I posted information about the Tony Harrison poem, ‘V’, which movingly explores the issue and opens it up to considerations of the relationship between language and power. Once again, I would like to say that my comments were in no way concerned with a complaint about not being allowed to swear. I would also say that I consider an exploration of the relationship between language and power to be relevant on a Literature discussion forum.

Lots of young people appear to use the site. I genuinely believe that they can learn a great deal about the issues raised by this topic if they simply observe the interaction between the contributors and the moderators. It might only be a microcosm but to many members such observation should bring the issues to life in a much more immediate way than a hypothetical discussion would. It should also prove that those dusty old tomes are not irrelevant to today’s world.

Shouldn’t Literature be something that is vital and relevant to the here and now or is it simply a quaint piece of decoration to be admired and cherished like a stuffed and extinct exhibit in a museum? As a teacher, my ultimate aim with any student is to make myself unnecessary -no longer necessary because the student has learned to think for him or herself. If that means questioning me, then all the better (“I respect faith, but doubt is what gets you an education.” Wilson Mizner).

In any meaningful discussion of authority and censorship, surely there needs to be some consideration of the motivation and processes of legitimisation of that authority? I’m not even talking about challenging it (which would be a pointless, trivial and utterly self-indulgent thing to do in the context of a Forum) – but simply examining it. Scrutiny of ideas and their expression is surely important or is it the case that even examining the rules (without any desire to change them) is considered a threat of sufficient seriousness to be outlawed?

Ultimately, I would argue that the suppression of thought and control of language have more to do with maintaining existing power structures than any issues of morality or even propriety. This does not mean that I simply want to use ‘naughty words’ or believe that ‘anything goes’.

Another literary text that people might find interesting when thinking about this topic, is Graham Swift’s ‘Waterland’. The main character is a History teacher who tries to teach his subject using the stories of his own life. As you would expect, he finds himself in conflict with those for whom a structured, balanced and accessible curriculum is sacrosanct.

“(So it’s all right, children. No need to be afraid. Lewis is here. Don’t be gloomy. To all these morbid dreams, a simple answer: the nuclear fallout shelter.)”

Two requests to his class are offered here as impassioned expressions of my own beliefs:


“Children, don't stop asking why. Don't cease your Why Sir? Why Sir? Though it gets more difficult the more you ask it, though it gets more inexplicable, more painful, and the answer never seems to come any nearer, don't try to escape this question Why.”

“Children, be curious. Nothing is worse (I know it) than when curiosity stops. Nothing is more repressive than the repression of curiosity. Curiosity begets love. It weds us to the world. It's part of our perverse, madcap love for this impossible planet we inhabit. People die when curiosity goes. People have to find out, people have to know. How can there be any true revolution till we know what we're made of?”

[RobinHood3000]

Irrevelant to your points? I disagree. A Moderator attempted to moderate you on what she perceived as a violation of the terms of use, and instead of politely explaining the difference between what she perceived and what you meant, you martyred yourself by invoking a cause (free speech) far greater than what was actually being argued: a simple misunderstanding.

As far as censorship goes, this is not a forced book-burning here, Unnamable--you'll note that, despite what you view as being your personal victimization, the majority of your posts remain intact. As we have pointed out, your membership here is voluntary, and if you don't like the Terms of Use, you're free to leave. Novel concept, isn't it? You like it, you stay; you don't like it, you leave. Hardly anything to get your knickers in a tizzy over.

[Virgil]

Question for Unnamable. You state:


Ultimately, I would argue that the suppression of thought and control of language have more to do with maintaining existing power structures than any issues of morality or even propriety. This does not mean that I simply want to use ‘naughty words’ or believe that ‘anything goes’.

Can you expand on this thought? How does power surpress thought and control of language? Can you also give real life, not fictional, examples to flesh this out?

BTW, I'm not really intersted in the argument above, but in reading this over I found this an interesting thought that I would like to converse on. Be aware also that I'm inclined to disagree with it but, let us say, I'm open to persuasion.

[Scheherazade]

The Unnamable> I am sorry to hear that you consider yourself misunderstood. The simple, very simple, point I was trying to make when I responded to your first post was that the kind of swearing which will not be tolerated is mainly in the form of personal attacks and abuse.

We understand that it sometimes appears in literary works and if you take the time to look around the Forum, you will see that there are poems and other works which contain such words (both published and personal). We are not rigid, power-crazed people, who edit the posts at will (though the idea sounds rather tempting at times ;)). As Logos pointed out, we try to be as fair as possible and evaluate individual merits of each post before reacting to them. However, as a general guideline and to ensure fairness to all, we have a rule:

Swearing is not allowed in this Forum.


Virgil> Would you like to start a separate thread for that particular discussion so that it will be easier to follow? Thank you.

[The Unnamable]

Irrevelant to your points? I disagree. A Moderator attempted to moderate you on what she perceived as a violation of the terms of use,
You see, that's not what happened - which is why I said your response was irrelevant. What was the violation? The mod simply directed a comment at me; there was no violation.
I politely urge that you actually read the posts before making such statements.

[RobinHood3000]

And I would urge you to do the same: I said a PERCEIVED violation of the terms of use.

[Anon22]

You see, that's not what happened - which is why I said your response was irrelevant. What was the violation? The mod simply directed a comment at me; there was no violation.
I politely urge that you actually read the posts before making such statements.

Gosh, you make things more complicated than they already are (it's just a simple misunderstanding), and now you want to make things worser than they are by telling Robin that he's not reading the posts (do you know how horribly offensive that is?)


Digital Crash, you say, “It appears that in a way you are saying that swearing isn't bad”. Firstly, so what if I am? Am I not allowed to think differently about the use of such words, while at the same time accepting that I won’t be using them? Are our thoughts to be controlled as well as our actions? That is a very dangerous precedent to set and one you can learn more about by reading Orwell’s ‘1984’, especially in the sections relating to the concept of ‘Thoughtcrime’. However, the vagueness in your statement (‘It appears’, ‘in a way’) should alert others to the possibility that this is not what I am saying. I am happy to answer for what I have said but not for what it would be most convenient for your argument to assume that I had said.

You're right, swearing isn't bad... but that's not the point, she's not telling you that swearing isn't allowed here because she thinks you'll swear, but she's saying that even though swearing isn't bad it's still not allowed here.

[The Unnamable]

You're right, swearing isn't bad... but that's not the point, she's not telling you that swearing isn't allowed here because she thinks you'll swear, but she's saying that even though swearing isn't bad it's still not allowed here.

She doesn't need to tell me, I know. However, the original discussion is simply reduced to a stating of the rules, which certainly does not help explore or develop it in any way. I think it's an interesting topic and one that deserves more consideration than that.

BTW your interpretation is contrary to Robin's. He assumes a 'perceived' violation on the part of the mod. You say that she's NOT telling me that swearing isn't allowed because she thinks I will swear (which implies that she didn't think this). Robin assumed that she DID perceive a violation. Personally I DON'T think she perceived a violation, which is why I still think all that is irrelevant. Would the discussion have been interesting in any way if, once the topic had been started, a mod simply said, "It's not allowed - end of discussion, next topic please."?

[RobinHood3000]

Here's a novel idea--ask Scher for the reasoning behind the posting. That'll clear up any confusion. And this is not a debate thread, this is an administrative notice thread. The Admin authored it, and would have no reason to dismiss it.

[Anon22]

Here's a novel idea--ask Scher for the reasoning behind the posting. That'll clear up any confusion. And this is not a debate thread, this is an administrative notice thread. The Admin authored it, and would have no reason to dismiss it.

I'm sure that's something we can all agree on.

[starrwriter]

I am strongly against swearing, especially in a public forum.
Well, I will say that when I was 12, I came to know what **** meant and it created a lot of confusions in me. Now, I feel in a matter of a year, I have grown up a lot but still, it does not allow me to use strong words like **** or even words like b***s***
Nobody wants YOU to swear, Pensive. You're a girl and too young, both of which would make swearing unseemly in you. Boys and adults are a different matter.

[Anon22]

Nobody wants YOU to swear, Pensive. You're a girl and too young, both of which would make swearing unseemly in you. Boys and adults are a different matter.

That seems a little sexist :\ just because girls are girls doesn't mean that they shouldn't swear. If they want to swear it's alright with me... but everybody has their opinions, and that's just mine.

[starrwriter]

That seems a little sexist :\ just because girls are girls doesn't mean that they shouldn't swear.
Certainly it does and I don't care if it's sexist to say so. Young girls with potty mouth are extremely unattractive. Pensive can wait until she grows up before she decides whether she wants to talk like a sailor.

[The Unnamable]

just because girls are girls doesn't mean that they shouldn't swear.
True - another example of how patriarchy constructs gender.

[starrwriter]

True - another example of how patriarchy constructs gender.
If you think we live in a patriarchy, you must not be in a relationship with a woman.

[emily655321]

I think Robin hit the nail on the head, Unnamable:
And this is not a debate thread, this is an administrative notice thread.
The reason you got the response you did, rather than an open debate on the cause of free speech, is because this particular thread is not the proper forum for debate. If you want that, you ought to start your own thread and propose a discussion on free speech and authority. Any replies to this thread are generally assumed to be commentary on the No-Swearing Rule, not on the subject of swearing in general.

Your discussion style is very combative, which may be why you feel the responses you get to be personal attacks. If someone misunderstands you, you might try to give them the benefit of the doubt and calmly re-explain yourself, rather than getting angry with them. I'm sure no one here meant to offend you. Remember, a person can't misunderstand you if they don't first make an honest attempt to understand. Rather than being offended by a misinterpretation of your words, be honored that someone took time to consider them.

[The Unnamable]

potty mouth

What an interesting phrase. It equates verbal obscenity with excrement, while maintaining an element of the child in its language. I'm sure Freud would have had something to say about it.

And please don't take that the wrong way, starrwriter, I'm not being my usual objectionable self. I genuinely find it interesting.

[The Unnamable]

If you think we live in a patriarchy, you must not be in a relationship with a woman.

Do you blame me? ;)

[The Unnamable]

Any replies to this thread are generally assumed to be commentary on the No-Swearing Rule, not on the subject of swearing in general.


Surely the former is a direct consequence of the latter?

[Virgil]

If you think we live in a patriarchy, you must not be in a relationship with a woman.


Star - That is a quote for the ages. I will remember that forever. And I will use it as often as I can.

[Scheherazade]

Dear All,

Now that we have reinvented the wheel and concluded that:

a) Swearing is not allowed on this Forum,

b) This is NOT a thread to discuss whether swearing is acceptable in general but an annoucement thread posted by the Admin himself,

Please let's move on.

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised here (eg language and swearing), please feel free to start other threads.

[Anon22]

Dear All,

Now that we have reinvented the wheel and concluded that:

a) Swearing is not allowed on this Forum,

b) This is NOT a thread to discuss whether swearing is acceptable in general but an annoucement thread posted by the Admin himself,

Please let's move on.

If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised here (eg language and swearing), please feel free to start other threads.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

[starrwriter]

What an interesting phrase. It equates verbal obscenity with excrement, while maintaining an element of the child in its language. I'm sure Freud would have had something to say about it.

Freud was a dirty old man. And excrement IS obscene. Just look in your commode the next time you finish taking care of business.

Happy holiday, Unnamable, from the Scatological Humorist (me).

[starrwriter]

Now that we have reinvented the wheel ...
*Starrwriter rolls reinvented wheel around his apartment*
Look, Scher. It's so much fun to play with.

[Scheherazade]

*Starrwriter rolls reinvented wheel around his apartment*
Look, Scher. It's so much fun to play with.*knew Og the Caveman would enjoy the wheel*

Merry Christmas, Starr!

;)

[starrwriter]

*knew Og the Caveman would enjoy the wheel*
Merry Christmas, Starr!
Og the caveman has carved his first poem into stone:

He's making an ingredient list
And checking it once
To bake Ex-Lax cookies
For the old dunce
Santa Claus is running tonight

Merry X-Mas, Scher. (And leave plenty of toilet paper out for Santa)

[Pensive]

Nobody wants YOU to swear, Pensive. You're a girl and too young, both of which would make swearing unseemly in you. Boys and adults are a different matter.

Ummm.....Sir, Forum rules are as necessary for you to follow as for me. :p

When some one reads your post, the person usually don't investigate your AGE or GENDER, as long as your post does not contains any unusual data.

By the way, by your posts, I did not have the slightest idea that you were between 50-70, instead I used to think that you were somewhere between 80-90. :p *hehe, sorry, I was off-topic, gotta control my this problem from today*

[starrwriter]

By the way, by your posts, I did not have the slightest idea that you were between 50-70, instead I used to think that you were somewhere between 80-90.*hehe, sorry, I was off-topic, gotta control my this problem from today*
Behave yourself or Starrwriter will spank.

[RobinHood3000]

If starrwriter spanks and Pensive gives the word, Robin shoots.

:brow: http://www.websmileys.com/sm/violent/sterb043.gif

[Pensive]

Robin, Sir starrwriter is gonna spank himself.

[Stanislaw]

gosh darn it all you wipper snappers and yer dang good fer cow fodder shenanigins. oh heck, now you mad me curse: may the flees of a thousand camels infect yer arpits!!!

ahh, now that I got all the vulgarity out of my system time to post. besides I just loathe all those @#$%&*% that @#@$% swear, damn sons o #$%#$%#!!! :D

[Nightshade]

Ihemmm, *raise eyebrow*

[Stanislaw]

Ihemmm, *raise eyebrow*

er...yesh??? :D

[Nightshade]

Manners, pulls out umberella and raps stans knuckles manners!
;)

[Stanislaw]

garr, but I ba @#$@ blood thirsty #@$%%@# pirate! :D
Oh vell, even I are not that fowl. :D

[Nightshade]

fowl?!
http://www.rupert-fish.co.uk/photos/normal-guinea-fowl.JPG
:lol: ;)

[Stanislaw]

indeed...with orange sauce...or maybe gravy... :D

[rachel]

who in the world is Barbosa. do you guys have a secret posting world Iam not privileged to enter? whaaaaaaaaa

[Stanislaw]

pirates o the carribean, he is the mutineer who took over the black pearl.

[rachel]

oh aye so that's it is it.
well yo ho ho and a bottle of lite rum I be sneakin up to that cut throat and tyin him up and hoisting him up up up
then I be putting the black pearl in my purse and runnin like de wind so he don't get me. garr it be a beauteous black parl. mine all mine, that is unless you be wantin it dastardly stan to replace that tooth yer first mate shoved out?

[Stanislaw]

garr, it be gold or nuthin fer me lass. :D

[rachel]

oh aye I fergot ye are a higher class pyrate. in that case I be keepin that black parl and makin me way over to a jewry shop. I be too tired to roam the seas as I must be back to make me scurvy family dinner. so I be stealin the best gold and bringin it to ya dastardly stan. oh and I be grateful if you kin visit me in jail afterwards. I need to keep up me rum.

[Scheherazade]

Dear All,

This thread has been posted by the Admin as a reminder about Forum Rules and related discussions. Please post in other threads such as Live Chat for daily conversations.

Thank you! :)

[Stanislaw]

Dear All,

This thread has been posted by the Admin as a reminder about Forum Rules and related discussions. Please post in other threads such as Live Chat for daily conversations.

Thank you! :)

sorry m'am. :D

[rachel]

aye lassie will do

[Fontainhas]

Its about time. Only the weak minded need to swear to get their point across.

Hum I agree. I never swear, and anyways, it's extremely unpolite for a lady to talk with that manner. I only say s*** once in a while, but that's hardly a swear word, at least in my country...

[Xamonas Chegwe]

This thread should be called, "Don't use swear words that Americans understand". There are plenty of words that we use in England that get past the filters.

I am of course, far too polite to use any of them. I'm just not that kind of wanker. :lol:

[TodHackett]

K. Needs to be said.

A few days ago, in this forum:

http://www.online-literature.com/forums/showthread.php?p=164396#post164396

I posted the following:


'She's a half-hearted little *****, isn't she?
She ain't so hot. Look at her.
She ain't nothin' now but Democracy.'"

This text is from a poem by a published, award-winning poet, Bart Baxter. But the filter mangled it. So, I posted a clarification (if you're really interested in knowing how, go there). I tried to be subtle about it.

So, first thing--

Normally, I agree with the filter thing-- and I work as an information professional. I think a filter is necessary. Totally. No question. But here I was quoting a published work, with the intention of discussing said work. And yes, the poem's coarse. And yes, it's gratuitous. And yes, it's abhorrent on all kinds of levels. But that's b/c the poet wrote it that way. He had a point in doing it, and it's essential to the work. ****, I could name half a dozen poets (Nikki Giovanni, Allen Ginsburg, Ezra Pound, Charles Baudelaire, Arthur Rimbaud, Jack Kerouac... see?) who used "profane" words as devices in their poetry. So, if I'm going to discuss that poetry, sometimes it's necessary to clarify, and that (sometimes) means dodging the filter. But I won't do it often, and only when it's necessary, and I will try to do it in a way that is not blatant.

Second thing--


Its about time. Only the weak minded need to swear to get their point across.

TOTALLY disagree. See above.

Hope this doesn't get me expelled or branded in some way. But really, I'm pretty passionate about this, and I felt it needed to be said.

[RobinHood3000]

Well, it isn't as if we're dim-witted enough not to know what it says or means in a quoted work, right?

[TodHackett]

RH3K--

Didn't mean to insult anyone. Sorry if that's how I came off.

Thing is, there are at least two words I can think of that fit here (both in terms of # of letters and in terms of the rhyme scheme and feel of the poem), and there are probably far, far more than that. Take a look at my original post. My effort was to quote the text as the author wrote it, and so I wanted to be specific.

Didn't mean to offend... or if I did, I meant to do it in order to provoke intelligent, civil discussion.

[TodHackett]

I did go a bit overboard with the bolds and italics. Sorry.

[RobinHood3000]

Don't worry, I didn't mean it in an insulted tone--I know what you meant, I was just making a point. No harsh feelings whatsoever, Tod.

[Logos]

Tod, it doesn't matter, world-renowned published poetry or just foaming-at-the-mouth raving, it all gets filtered, it's part of the software. Nobody said you can't discuss a poem that happens to contain swearwords :)

[Stanislaw]

Roses are #$%$# red
Violets ared @#$%@#^ blue
and I think $#%@# is #$%#@% a #$!@$ pickup truck.

:D

heh, just joking.

Poetry as such uses these expressions to shock its readers into "getting the point" but is it really needed, I mean ozymandeus is a powerfull piece of prose and yet there is no "I am Ozzyman, the baddest $%@#$ in the land @#$%@#$#$ look on my #$%@# works ye #$%@# mighty and kiss my $%@# you #$%#@ pig eating sons o #$%#$%."

I stand by my opinion: tis not needed.

[RobinHood3000]

Is that Mr. Osbourne's rendition?

[Stanislaw]

Is that Mr. Osbourne's rendition?

Well, if he was so inclined. :D

[smsm]

I just want to say ....
Hello for all members
iam register just now

[Obdurate]

Hum I agree. I never swear, and anyways, it's extremely unpolite for a lady to talk with that manner. I only say s*** once in a while, but that's hardly a swear word, at least in my country...

See, I don't agree with what Stanislaw said.
I swear a fair amount in regular conversation, not so much online because it's just more work, but it's not because I'm weak minded or whatever.

A well positioned curse word can add a lot to a sentence.

I'm not trying to argue the rule against swearing- because I really don't care if I can swear here or not- I just really can't get my head around the logic behind the comment. Oh well.

[zanna]

Interesting discussion, and for people that haven't heard, here is a rumor: supposedly the f "word" isn't a word; it's an acrostic. "For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge." The people in charge got tired of writing all that when they caught someone, so they shortened it. Now, I don't know if that is the truth, but it works. So, it's a prepositional phrase, just smooshed into a word.

[thehangedman]

That's actually a myth zanna. go to snopes.com for the true origin.

[zanna]

Ooh, thanks hang. It sounded good tho. Would have explained a lot. That's ok, don't plan on using it anyway . . . there are plenty of words out there.

[Shadowsarin]

Well, I personally find nothing wrong with Sexual intercourseing 'swear' words at all, and use them freely. Afterall, they are 'only' haemorrhaging words. And what the hades is wrong with words? In fact, if you read Sexual intercourseing 'swear' words as their litteral meaning, I personally them urinatingly funny!

Besides, when using them in incestual sexual intercourseing context they can really add to a sentence. I don't consider 'swearing' a sign of immaturity if it is done in context. And I would of hoped that mature people could also see this. To denounce a word as 'always wrong' is in my polite and respectful oppinion Bos taurus feces.

I'm not going to start a war against the ruling or be disrespectful, I'm just putting across my opinion in a slighty satirical way. The no swearing rule is a rule and I will follow it etc etc.

[Stanislaw]

:D nice!

I don't know...I mean, swearing has its uses, and in some instances can be a from of breking the ice, and as a means of "fitting in" however...it's not really needed to make a point. It's a bit like bringing a gun to a sword fight...sure the gun will win, but it takes out all of the fun.

[Nightshade]

It's a bit like bringing a gun to a sword fight...sure the gun will win, but it takes out all of the fun.

what a pleasent image Im got tp carry around with me today people bleeding all over the place :rolleyes:

[Stanislaw]

what a pleasent image Im got tp carry around with me today people bleeding all over the place :rolleyes:

heh sorry...I just finished watching Indiana Jones...and he shoots this sword-bandit...and, I had to think of it.:D

[Jay]

Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom? :p

[Stanislaw]

nope...it was the lost ark. the scene where he runs into the market place and there are all of these sword wielding ninja-like guys...and after one guy goes crazy demonstrating his sword technique...indie just pulls out his gun and...BANG...he wins the fight.:D

[Jay]

Highly efficient, doncha think? I like scenes like that :D

[Stanislaw]

yeah...it was hilarious...:D

[Shadowsarin]

To be a compleat movie freak for a second, though this is off the top of my head, the reason he just shot him rarther than having a dramatic fight was because Harrison Ford had diarria(sp) at that point and thus could not do a propper fight. I could be wrong though.

[Nightshade]

No SHADOW I think your right and the sword man was heart broken because it was supposeed to be the best on screen sword fight ever.

[Shadowsarin]

Right, I just want to make a little point clear here.

Why is "Bugger" uncensored, yet "***"@ is? It makes no sense! '***' has a correct (Ahibit old) meaning of being a donkey, yet 'bugger' is the act of anal intercourse.

I'm not waging war against the filter, don't worry, I was just wondering why this is. Seems a bit funny to me!


@ ~ (As its censored, think something you sit on)

[RobinHood3000]

Aye, Shadow's right. Harrison Ford wasn't feeling well, and he said, "Why don't we just shoot the bastard?" The director loved it, and it fit a lot better with the character of Indy, so they used it.

[Stanislaw]

To be a compleat movie freak for a second, though this is off the top of my head, the reason he just shot him rarther than having a dramatic fight was because Harrison Ford had diarria(sp) at that point and thus could not do a propper fight. I could be wrong though.

Yes...something like that. He was really tried and just pulled out his gun and shot the guy, and the director was like: yeah...why not?


No SHADOW I think your right and the sword man was heart broken because it was supposeed to be the best on screen sword fight ever.

yup...I kinda feel sorry for that guy, he sorta lost his chance.


Right, I just want to make a little point clear here.

Why is "Bugger" uncensored, yet "***"@ is? It makes no sense! '***' has a correct (Ahibit old) meaning of being a donkey, yet 'bugger' is the act of anal intercourse.

I'm not waging war against the filter, don't worry, I was just wondering why this is. Seems a bit funny to me!


@ ~ (As its censored, think something you sit on)

heh...but bugger is not widely recognized. It's too 'archaic'.


Aye, Shadow's right. Harrison Ford wasn't feeling well, and he said, "Why don't we just shoot the bastard?" The director loved it, and it fit a lot better with the character of Indy, so they used it.

exactly.

[brainstrain]

Right, I just want to make a little point clear here.

Why is "Bugger" uncensored, yet "***"@ is? It makes no sense! '***' has a correct (Ahibit old) meaning of being a donkey, yet 'bugger' is the act of anal intercourse.

I'm not waging war against the filter, don't worry, I was just wondering why this is. Seems a bit funny to me!


@ ~ (As its censored, think something you sit on)

Yeah, I had no idea that that word had another meaning. Wow...I wonderful if my grandparents know that? They are always calling people little buggers...

But it really is an out dated word. How on earth did you find out it was censored :lol:

[ShoutGrace]

I remember it because it was the word used to describe the behaviour for which Oscar Wilde was escorted to prison - "buggery."

[Shadowsarin]

How on earth did you find out it was censored?

Being an Englishman, I've always known and used the word. To say "Oh Bugger" is my favored exclemation when something goes wrong etc.

How on earth can you not use it?