Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » Yo Mod (Page 5)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   
Author Topic: Yo Mod
Brian
Member
Member # 588

 - posted      Profile for Brian   Email Brian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
SP:
quote:
I pricked your lurking pride a bit with my arrogant flip, huh?
Your arrogant flip was aimed at DW, not me.

quote:
it does much amuse me when would-be brawl-busters bitch of bruises breaking out in the thin-skins they themselves inserted into a boisterous bang-about.
Yes, I did insert myself.
No, I was not intending to stop the fight; I was showing support for Pete's position, per his request.
No, the thin skin I was commenting on was not mine - it was yours.

quote:
And never mind the fact that you can't seem to see that I usually mean more than one simple thing.)
And that is the problem. By the time you are done altering an alliterative allusion to the taut place where your tertiary point is tolerably perceptible, your primary thrust is no longer pointed true.

And when you inevitably are misunderstood, rather than unwinding the winsom words which wrought the woe, you would wrap more wit around the writhing, wounded warrior, and send him back into the fray.

quote:
As I mentioned, I'm mostly just miffed at your meddling here because you did it in a case where I can't chew it up and spit it back. And not because you made an irrefutable point, but rather because you yelled it out from behind the guy who was walking away
You seem to be doing an awful lot of chewing and spitting as it is. If I was a regular poster, I would need a raincoat [Smile]

I wasn't yelling out from behind Pete, I was offering him a hand out of the pit you two had mired yourselves in.

quote:
...disagree from you own position in your own arguments...
The only parts of my original post which were directed at you were my own position: that you seem to enjoy the arguing so much you tend to lose track of exactly what everyone is saying.

quote:
...instead of taking anonymous potshots...
Considering what our respective screen names are, I don't think that word means what you think it means...


As for ducking back into the shadows - I will make time to reply to any ripostes you offer; lurking doesn't mean I don't read what you write. If you address something to me, I will answer you.

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Brian is not yelling from behind me; I am chortling delightedly from behind Brian. SP seems to have met his alliterative match. Game on! I didn't realize there were that many words that started with W.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by D.W.:
quote:
I pretty much only de-lurk when I see something egregiously wrong which no-one else has replied to yet.
Mott is dead, long live Mott?

quote:
If several people, from wide ranges of Ornery have 'thrice misrepresented' you, maybe you should drop some of the overly-clever word play and actually say what you mean...
Don’t listen to him SP. Even if I only catch half of them I still find this style of humor to be a bit refreshing. It’s so rarely well executed that even a mediocre attempt can get a chuckle. [Razz]

I enjoy alliteration, assonance, and pun, and when it comes to the contest of assonance, I believe I kicked SP's last week. [Smile] But Brian did say only drop "some," and he demo'd a pretty hefty talent for it himself. I've suggested that SP drop some of that, where it inhibits transmission of meaning. The Dr. Seuss-on-Meth style tickles me as much as the next guy, so long as I can understand what's being said.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
D.W.
Member
Member # 4370

 - posted      Profile for D.W.   Email D.W.   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'm not sure. I kinda like wondering if I'm being dense or he's being nuts.
Posts: 4308 | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]

Pip's got a quip lip!

[Big Grin]
quote:
Your arrogant flip was aimed at DW, not me.
Yup. That is indeed what I pointed out. (You’re getting better at mimicking me accurately.) And yet the flippancy flicked at DW’s thick hide apparently lashed hard enough to unhide you.
quote:
I was showing support for Pete's position, per his request.
Hmm.

I won't comment on Pete's pleas for back-up right here. I believe I can understand the perceptions that led to it.

But note here, pupsqueak, that you won't see me calling for dogs to back up the way I've painted Pete. In fact, I have a tendency to turn my teeth on mangy mutts that try to pile on *my opponents* from behind *me.* I pretty much despise petty prats who puff up points that aren't their own to carry context by amassing the amount of mouths making the same noise rather than measuring out more meaning of their own

And I get that your motive may have been to counter my claim that everyone following along sees Pete as tantrum-prone. But do observe that you never actually made that point, did you? (I have to guess at what your inept meddling could have aptly been about.) Instead, you took his misrepresentation of everything I said, and claimed it was precisely accurate.

And it wasn’t.

For one small instance within the mass of error, while Pete and you represent me as approving of Mod singling out posters, this actually never happened. I protested a blanket ban on cussing, which was the reason Mod gave for her edit edict.
quote:
SP:
you're gonna get a protest (from me, at least) if you're inventing a new blanket rule that we're not allowed to use whatever f*cking terms we want to use to accurately convey the exact goddammed idea we are trying to convey.

Now, Mod may have pointed out a recurring pattern in Pete’s behavior in her response, but the clear implication in her reply to my protest was that she edited this specific use of language because of the regrettably childish nature of the language in the specific post—as opposed to the reason she originally gave, which was the cause for my complaint.

But I didn’t focus on the reference to Pete’s history, in my response. I focused on the implied reason for which she claims she’ll edit. Here was my response:
quote:
SP:
OK. I can be down with the use of some subjective judgment. It seems especially useful in cases where folks might appear to wish they had used other terms, rather than be on record making a hot mess.

Since you apparently can’t follow nuanced context well enough to see what I was actually saying, let me spell it out for you: I never said I was OK with picking on individual posters (I’m the guy who posted a Mod protest thread, and called Mod out for doing exactly that—I’m the guy who singled out Mod for singling out G3 and Pete's text without supplying proper reasoning). What I did say was that I was OK with cleaning up messes that the original posters themselves might regret. To make sure my position was clear (for literate folk, anyway), I added this:
quote:
SP:
I don't personally support censoring childishness as a general rule. But it does appear that a lot orneryans would like some of it moderated out.

…and I followed up on all of the above by probing Pete to see if he regretted the language that actually got censored:
quote:
SP:
You seemed like you agreed that your thread title was a fail, was the wording part of a similar fail?

To which Pete responded:
quote:
Absolutely. I'd be delighted and applaud if OM had simply replaced the entire thread title with

"[poorly named thread]"

Meaning that the poster whose words got censored in the instance I protested (you know: the actual substance here) was actually OK with being censored for the childishness of the post in this particular case. I already had that figured, of course, since I participated in the thread, and Pete was in there talking about regretting the mess he had made with his initial post.

And even then, I went on record agreeing with Pete about the things I thought were mistaken in the way Mod chose to edit:
quote:
I agree with both of the major thrusts here. "Language" is not a sufficient reason for censorship per se. This is why I bumped this thread to protest it. And the point of the mod edits thread should be to provide the context of what is crossing lines--since the lines are being enforced through a subjective evaluation of context.
So there is the actual substance of the issue--my actual response. Note how none of the actual substance is mentioned in Pete’s summary of what SP had said on the issue. Note that you copycatted his misrepresentation of me.

Now, Pete did work hard to drag the issue away from the actual substance (the fact that Mod chooses to edit childishly disruptive posts) by making a fuss about the fact that Mod mentioned it in terms of a pattern in his behavior. Which means, that—while he apparently didn’t mind being censored for the admittedly childish nature of the post which was censored—he did mind the fact that Mod had explained her real reason in terms of a pattern in his behavior (rather than isolating the specific instance of his behavior which he acknowledged as edit-worthy). To his mind, mentioning it in terms of his history is a personal attack.

Since he directed this general complaint at me, I responded that I don’t give a f*ck if someone gets represented in a way that appears accurate to me.

But do note here, please, that what *really* happened *really* was me trying to focus on the substance—and it was indeed *Pete* who was taking a reference to the personal attack on his history, and making this the central issue in the thread--I only responded to that issue when he insisted on making it the central issue in the thread.

Now, I don’t care if Pete wants to draw a picture of "sadistic, personally-attacking SP" in a way that blatantly misrepresents what I said and what I was doing. That’s OK. I’m fine engaging him, and letting him paint away. People can read what happened for themselves, and I honestly couldn't give a sh*t if there are lurking illiterates who can't follow what happens well enough to see when they're buying an obviously untrue frame.

But if lurking illiterates can’t properly follow what I say, they shouldn’t go validating a misrepresentation of me. Or, rather—-little puppies can yip and yap however they like, but I am gonna shove their noses in their sh*t.

[Smile]

[ September 28, 2012, 09:22 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
But that is not the edit I complained of.

My complaint was about the "ass" removal, and the notion of special Pete restrictions.

You speak in we terms as if speaking with Ornery's collective voice, but then you put down 4 ornerians who disagree with you.

And what gives with your calling Brian Pet names after you protested my use of the same 3 months after I stopped?

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:

If you want to complain about specific instances of editing, I *will* get your back. But you didn't complain about the instance.

I mentioned that I couldn't figure out the initial context of "ass" and I went out of my way to ask you if it was something you regretted, like the thread title--because you were in the thread acknowledging that the original post (from which "ass" was somehow removed) was something you regretted.

But you didn't want to talk about the specific instance of censorship. You wanted to talk about meanies personally attacking you.

I did bring it up--in part--to give you a platform to complain about the instance of editing itself. But you did seem OK with the specific instance.
quote:
You speak in we terms as if speaking with Ornery's collective voice, but then you put down 4 ornerians who disagree with you.
I'm an arrogant ass, remember? We sometimes see ourselves in terms of the royal "We."

[Wink]

But seriously? You want to count up votes here? I don't. I'd be seriously pissed if folks started wading in to pile on about how they agree with the way I represent things you say and do. I've picked fights with "allies" in the past to stop precisely that kind of piling-on from happening.

To my mind, this is one of the major reasons I can come across as such a dick here sometimes. I frequently slap people in the mouth just for chiming in on my side. I am definitively not down with advocacy-via-crowd.

In any case, I'm not even sure who and what you're counting here.

People do like, and support you, Pete. I'm one of those people.
quote:
And what gives with your calling Brian Pet names after you protested my use of the same 3 months after I stopped?
Just trying to keep a denizen of the dark from sniping, then retreating back into shadow. A bit of pique to get a better peek.

[Smile]

And it's working--his response was awesome. Had me beaming all day.

In any case--yet again: I never protested your nicknames of homoerotic endearment. I just didn't participate in that particular game with you.

[ September 28, 2012, 10:26 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PS Brian:

Don't get me wrong, please. I truly loved your response. Just because I unleash a limited licking from the left side of my lips, which may loop downward into a frown, doesn't mean that the right side of my mouth isn't gripped with a gorgeous grin.
quote:
And when you inevitably are misunderstood, rather than unwinding the winsom words which wrought the woe, you would wrap more wit around the writhing, wounded warrior, and send him back into the fray.
[Big Grin]

Why should I wash my whispers? Soldiers should shoulder the wheel, and soldier on, wincing under the weight if they wish, but whisking my will into the world notwithstanding. Weathered and weary or not, words are naught, if not my will's wherewithal...

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I kinda like wondering if I'm being dense or he's being nuts.
I'm a "glass is all the way full" kind of guy, myself. Which means that I'm optimistic enough to believe that it's bound to be a bit of both...

(...but see what I mean? We can't even stand our own team. We just tanked ourselves in the teeth just to test-see if the thunk'd be droll. [Big Grin] )

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Pete:

If you want to complain about specific instances of editing, I *will* get your back. But you didn't complain about the instance.

I did. Please complain. Because I want my ass back.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Pete:

If you want to complain about specific instances of editing, I *will* get your back. But you didn't complain about the instance.

I mentioned that I couldn't figure out the initial context of "ass" and I went out of my way to ask you if it was something you regretted, like the thread title--because you were in the thread acknowledging that the original post (from which "ass" was somehow removed) was something you regretted.

No, the thread title had "bitchiness" removed. And I don't mind that.

Mod did not clarify the context in which I used the word "-ass" and I did not even know that it was my specific [bleeep] that had been hacked off until Mod said so on this thread. I have no idea which post of mine, or which thread, was left dis-assed-tered, but the idea of any hindquarter removal offends me greatly. In the name of all that is hole-ey, please speak to OM about my missing [bleeep].

[ September 29, 2012, 05:40 AM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" I don’t care if Pete wants to draw a picture of "sadistic, personally-attacking SP"

I don't think I drew such a picture. I thought it was more of a well-meaning but sloppy SP that cannot be troubled to keep track of what was said in which thread, in what context, or when; an SP that will have a big surprise if he ever bothers to re-read the thread from beginning to end without commenting. [Cool] It's like talking to a genius with dementia. [Crying]

[ September 29, 2012, 04:51 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"You want to count up votes here? I don't."

Neither do I. But Brian and Scifi are both people who have critiqued my style in the past. About 2 months ago SciFi asked that I drop the "get off my leg" retort, and I did (although you sorely made me miss it on this thread, SP!)

I respect your opinion as well, when you apply yourself to the facts, but you have an increasing tendency to drift from them, which is why I've been cracking down on you re quoting.

In short, I may be a problem on this forum, but I've been working on it. And on this thread, you're the problem, brother. Work on that.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:
quote:
In short, I may be a problem on this forum, but I've been working on it.
I don't personally see you as a problem, buddy. I see you as one of the most interesting conversationalists I've ever had the pleasure of engaging.
quote:
And on this thread, you're the problem, brother
I don't see a problem in this thread, either.

We've gotten to gripe and grumble at Mod, we've had fun playing "Whoop and Whirl," running up and down the escalators, we made a new wordplay friend out of a lurker who usually hides his remarkably punchy tongue. I even got to bury a haiku...

Where is the problem?
quote:
I have no idea which post of mine, or which thread, was left dis-assed-tered, but the idea of any hindquarter removal offends me greatly.
Nice!

I think that the "ass" hole is somewhere in the text of the original post in the "Bitchiness" thread. (It has a mod-edit stamp from within one minute of the "-ass" post in the mod-edit thread.) I'm not sure what the exact context was though. Several people in the thread mentioned that the initial post used language that seemed to attack anyone who might wish to engage on the topic, and the post was so charged that multiple people were confused as to what you even meant. You seemed to recognize that the initial post ran a bit hot, to the point of being counterproductive. My guess is that Mod snipped some of the sizzle after several people told you they couldn't even see what you were talking about because of the blur from the personal pepper it popped in the eyes. And you did seem like you regretted some of the smoke from the fire.

And--in any case--I did complain about it. (That's why I brought it up here.)

[ September 29, 2012, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Brian:
quote:
By the time you are done altering an alliterative allusion to the taut place where your tertiary point is tolerably perceptible, your primary thrust is no longer pointedly* true.
Seriously, awesome stuff. The ept eye will note that (alliterately alluding:) the diatricritical marking of your intended "tell people your point true" triple-double pairing is indeed sextetically symetrical, and your meaning would fold perfectly at the mirror-seam where you palindrome your t-p t-p t-p/pt p-t p-t scheme, if it weren't for what is literally an almost imperceptible note.

[Wink]

But what really has me in awe is that you balanced your meter around the alliterally amazing* ept point:

/ter/ti/ar/y/point/
/tol/er/ab/ly/perc/

/ept/

/pri/mar/ry/thrust/
/point/ed/ly/true/

That looks really tough to do on purpose.

Anyways, the rhyme in your spell is almost enough to convince me that I alter the perception of truth when I say what I mean.

But luckily, I notice that that's just the principal theme of your scheme--thus proving the pompous thrust too prepostrus to possibly trust.

[Big Grin]

*I loaned you the "ly" you needed from a place where I could take one out to craft a pun.

[Smile]

[ September 30, 2012, 02:20 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I won't comment on Pete's pleas for back-up right here. I believe I can understand the perceptions that led to it."

When I perceive that everything I say is interpreted as a "tantrum," my only way to get my point across is hope that someone else will say it. Brian's even more of an old-timer than me, and also the first Ornerian that I met in person, other than my cousin Drewmie.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]

Not *everything,* Pete.

Just the "I'm being attacked" scream.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
that's my exit queue. I'm done here.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Just a quibble: you mean exit "cue." An exit queue is something else.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
AI Wessex
Member
Member # 6653

 - posted      Profile for AI Wessex   Email AI Wessex   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
He may have spotted a line of people. You can't be sure.
Posts: 8393 | Registered: Feb 2011  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
<follows scifi, DW, and Brian out the door>
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian
Member
Member # 588

 - posted      Profile for Brian   Email Brian   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
his remarkably punchy tongue. I even got to bury a haiku...
Thanks! I was hoping that you noticed the pattern.
Great, now I have to go play Haiku-and-seek-ingprometheus.
Ah-ha! Found it. That is nice.


quote:
/ter/ti/ar/y/point/
/tol/er/ab/ly/perc/

/ept/

/pri/mar/ry/thrust/
/point/ed/ly/true/

Now my brain is all melty. Thanks a lot. [Smile]
I had to read your post three times to wot what was wrought. (I originally tried to work that into my 'w' post, but I couldn't make it flow right.)

quote:
That looks really tough to do on purpose
In fact, that looks almost impossible to do on purpose.

And in order to do it, you had to add the -ly to pointed, which changes the entire meaning of the phrase. The construction is awesome. I wish I could have come up with it myself. But even if I had thought of it, I wouldn't have used it, because getting my point across was more important than melting the brain of my interlocutor.

Although I will admit to putting it together in a pattern, because I say out loud everything I type, and I am a musician, so the meter scheme was accidental yet deliberate.
And I will admit that I was trying to find another p-t pair to finish the pattern, but nothing seemed to fit.

But that 'ept' swivel was all you. My hat is off to you.

[ October 01, 2012, 11:39 AM: Message edited by: Brian ]

Posts: 359 | Registered: Nov 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But even if I had thought of it, I wouldn't have used it, because getting my point across was more important than melting the brain of my interlocutor."

Hear hear!

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Bump.

Really?

[ October 18, 2012, 09:37 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*that* language, unlike the word "ass," has NOT traditionally been acceptable on Ornery. Please don't say that here.
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't call on God to condemn my fellow men (or whatever "it" might be)??

Pray it never be so (not to swear) that I need proclaim my fervent faith in God's condemnation of something (I wouldn't worry that such were my wont, but one wonders what one wants). Still, cursing the all-encompassing "it" by one's God seems like well-established Orneridiomese to me, (minding my manners mincingly...) but you're welcome to disagree with whatever you will.

But (by God, and damn it all), if my soul should suppose I'm supposed to propose that God damns something, I'd propose it's my right to indite it with what words I will. (God: please damn the bowderlization of our sacred Ornery book! [Big Grin] )

Which cluster of letters is unacceptable here, anyways? Which congeries codes for a cut? Is "God's" name sacred here enough for Mod to mendfully (more at meddlefully) reverence it out? Or is it the "dammit" that nicks at the nuts enough to nix such dicta? (By the by, is "nicking nuts"--directed at dicta--below the belt? [Wink] )

Maybe it's the meme minded into being at the collision of the curses conjured conjointly? You tell me, Pete: which contumelies can't come from our pens here--and can we really cry until our clamor cancels calls we can't condone? And while you're at it, riddle me a reason why whatever caw that catches in your craw compels a comprehensive decontamination of all our ornery throats.

[ October 18, 2012, 01:12 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The expletive bothers and offends a number of folks here. Use that information as you see fit.

" if my soul should suppose I'm supposed to propose that God damns something"

If you meant to make such a proposition, then you should master the language a bit more so you don't come off as using a shallow expletive.

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The expletive bothers and offends a number of folks here.
I'm aware of this. And I support everyone's right to feel offended by it, if they so choose.
quote:
Use that information as you see fit.
I do. Tart as my tongue can be, I don't actually go around Caulfielding the word all over the place.
quote:
If you meant to make such a proposition, then you should master the language a bit more so you don't come off as using a shallow expletive.
Mastery of language includes an awareness that there is a time to spit each shallow expletive that can roll off a tongue.

[ October 18, 2012, 01:28 AM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Allahdamnit, what a bunch of hot house flowers around here. [LOL]

[ October 18, 2012, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: G3 ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Argh.

Irked.

What's up Meddlerator? You don't deign to explain your whimsies anymore?

Here's your last limited response on your apparently arbitrary taste in the language you'll allow:

SP: "There *are* adult reasons to use adult language."

Mod: "True"

...so what's the deal with the word-policing policy, Mod?

Why can't we claim our god damns it, whatever it may be? (Not a rhetorical question, goshdarnit, if you're gonna censor, please supply a goshdarned reason why!) What words aren't we allowed to use, and--pretty please--explain the "why" behind your list of proscribed script.

To my mind, it looks like you're putting yourself in charge of making sure that nobody uses God's name in a way you personally interpret as "vain."

And what happened to trying to tone the censorship down, anyway? A year ago you were pointing out that you only had to edit like 10-12 posts a year--and saying that you hoped that number could go down. Are you still trying to limit yourself with that eraser to the times that really need it?

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:

Why can't we claim our god damns it, whatever it may be?

Do you really not understand the difference between an invocation and an expletive, or are you ********* *******?

[ October 18, 2012, 08:28 PM: Message edited by: Pete at Home ]

Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
OrneryMod
Administrator
Member # 977

 - posted      Profile for OrneryMod   Email OrneryMod   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
Argh.

Irked.

What's up Meddlerator? You don't deign to explain your whimsies anymore?

Here's your last limited response on your apparently arbitrary taste in the language you'll allow:

SP: "There *are* adult reasons to use adult language."

Mod: "True"

...so what's the deal with the word-policing policy, Mod?

Why can't we claim our god damns it, whatever it may be? (Not a rhetorical question, goshdarnit, if you're gonna censor, please supply a goshdarned reason why!) What words aren't we allowed to use, and--pretty please--explain the "why" behind your list of proscribed script.

To my mind, it looks like you're putting yourself in charge of making sure that nobody uses God's name in a way you personally interpret as "vain."

And what happened to trying to tone the censorship down, anyway? A year ago you were pointing out that you only had to edit like 10-12 posts a year--and saying that you hoped that number could go down. Are you still trying to limit yourself with that eraser to the times that really need it?

It was bothering posters without adding anything to the conversation. I wouldn't have removed it myself, but I didn't see any reason for keeping it when a complaint was made.
Posts: 1260 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
[QB]
quote:
The expletive bothers and offends a number of folks here.
I'm aware of this. And I support everyone's right to feel offended by it, if they so choose.
quote:
Use that information as you see fit.
I do. Tart as my tongue can be, I don't actually go around Caulfielding the word all over the place.
I realize that. I'm intrigued how long you are capable of whining and taking the name of Mod in vain [Wink] about the expletive's blessed removal, given your blithe acceptance of my earlier dis-ass-ter. [Big Grin]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Do you really not understand the difference between an invocation and an expletive
On the contrary, I understand that there are differences and that there is also substantial overlap.

But this is beside the point. We don't actually have a set of words that aren't allowed at Ornery--this is Mod enforcing her arbitrary taste in the language she personally wants to limit. Meanwhile, we're actually grown ups here, and we don't really need a censor-fairy for "language." It's not like we have a major potty-mouth problem around here. Everyone does pretty well using adult judgment about when and where to use colorful language. And there is a place for it sometimes.

See, even folks like myself (pretty much the rabid-fringe in the community when it comes to insisting on saying whatever the hell I want to say, however I want to say it) get along fine with folks like you, who want certain terms to be treated with a special deference. Years ago you asked me if I would be willing to be accomodating of your sensitivities around the term "God," and since you couched it as a request for a personal favor, I've been happy to oblige. And we haven't had a problem with it since here at the board.

Because people are generally doing just fine at censoring themselves as necessary.

In any case, "God" is allowed. "Dammit" is allowed. And it's not like "Goddammit" has been specifically disallowed by any longstanding rules--it's just a term that Mod (and others, indubitably) has a special, personal problem with.

But that's not what the Moderaser is for. "Language"--per se--isn't a valid reason for censorship here, to my understanding. It wasn't a proper reason when she did it to your "ass," and it isn't a proper reason here. This is Mod overstepping her bounds. She's supposed to have the latitude for subjective judgment in order to deal with the complex conflicts that posters here sometimes develop and need help resolving. She's not supposed to use subjective judgment to enforce her personal standards for acceptability of word-choice.

PS Mod: Do I have to dig up the moderation-discussion thread you said you wouldn't edit to talk about this stuff without being subject to your snipping? I necroed this thread because there is nowhere in your sticky edits thread for us plebes to voice complaints about what you're doing in the thread where you're doing it--and you went and censored the substance of my complaint here.

I get that you're trying to indicate that you're really not going to allow it, but I'm really asking: why the hell not? It's not like we have an actual problem here with it. Why does it appear that you're increasingly choosing to fix things that ain't broke?

[ October 18, 2012, 09:34 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It was bothering posters without adding anything to the conversation. I wouldn't have removed it myself, but I didn't see any reason for keeping it when a complaint was made.
I didn't see the original context to this one, but I believe that words always add something.

But are we really about disallowing people to say certain things here because someone complains about what has been said? (Ugh!)

In any case, it shouldn't be whether you see a reason to keep it--it should be whether it's absolutely necessary to delete someone else's words.

Why can't people fix it on their own? An interlocutor can easily mention that certain words offend them, and request a courtesy from the person in the conversation regarding such a sensibility.

This has actually happened in the past, and allowing interlocutors to mend such complaints discursively (like adults) actually improves the quality of discursive relationships.

But setting aside the benefits of allowing grown-ups to be grown-ups, what was your reason for censoring my use here in this thread--where it was very specifically the actual substance of discussion?

[ October 18, 2012, 09:30 PM: Message edited by: seekingprometheus ]

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Pete:
quote:
I realize that. I'm intrigued how long you are capable of whining and taking the name of Mod in vain about the expletive's blessed removal, given your blithe acceptance of my earlier dis-ass-ter.
Yeah, you read that wrong, buddy. I even went back and explained this to you already.

I was never OK with the disasster, except insofar as you seemed like your preference was to change the language of that initial post. But you didn't appear to follow what had been removed from where, and you thus gave conflicting accounts about your preferences.

Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Pete at Home
Member
Member # 429

 - posted      Profile for Pete at Home   Email Pete at Home   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by seekingprometheus:
An interlocutor can easily mention that certain words offend them, and request a courtesy from the person in the conversation regarding such a sensibility.

Like I just did above? Didn't you reply to my polite request with an obfuscating excuse which equated the epithet with the invocation? In that light, how can you argue that we can all be grown ups here? [LOL]
Posts: 44193 | Registered: Jun 2001  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
seekingprometheus
Member
Member # 3043

 - posted      Profile for seekingprometheus   Email seekingprometheus   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
[LOL]

Epithets are just the afterthought of whatever idea is invoked. Which is to say: the real epithetic force is croaked.
quote:
In that light, how can you argue that we can all be grown ups here?
I can't. But I would advocate for the right to act like an adult, should that be one's personal choice. [Wink]
Posts: 3654 | Registered: Sep 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G3
Member
Member # 6723

 - posted      Profile for G3   Email G3       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Crossposting from another thread...
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
Be warned that I will take action against any poster who continues to violate these guidelines, and if necessary will ban any member who continues to make such unwelcome posts after being warned until the election is over. This election matters. So does our ability to disagree without being disagreeable.

[Comment removed by Mod]

[ October 30, 2012, 10:36 AM: Message edited by: OrneryMod ]

Posts: 2234 | Registered: May 2012  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TommySama
Member
Member # 2780

 - posted      Profile for TommySama   Email TommySama       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by G3:
Crossposting from another thread...
quote:
Originally posted by OrneryMod:
Be warned that I will take action against any poster who continues to violate these guidelines, and if necessary will ban any member who continues to make such unwelcome posts after being warned until the election is over. This election matters. So does our ability to disagree without being disagreeable.

[Comment removed by Mod]
*Like*
Posts: 6396 | Registered: Feb 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 6 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1