BS: Mudcat 'language!'

Subject: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:08 AM

"Now now, language!" prim and priggish people would censoriously exclaim when I was young, in stern rebuke on hearing what they thought of as a "wicked word".

But, oh my fur and whiskers, isn't an awful lot of "language" a prominent feature of Mudcat! When I started posting, nearly 5 years ago now, I would employ my quota of "fucks" and "shits" and "cunts" and "bollocks" & such; it was just 'The Custom Of The Country'. But after a while, I grew sick of this constant reliving of my National Service days, the most tedious and tiresome and unsatisfying period of my entire life, and determined to forswear such locutions and usages on this forum; in the interest, I considered, of more, not less, cogent expression of the points I wished to make: a resolution I have maintained, with only perhaps one or two lapses, for some 4 years now; expressing myself in moments of stress or anger with no more than a "scoundrel" or a "scamp", a "villain" or a "scallywag" or a "swine" [this last most sparingly in moments of genuine rage]; or a "bloody" or a "dammit" or a "blast" - or even a "Dear me!" or an "Oh pooh!".

There are some posters on here, obviously of the utmost intelligence, but appearing nevertheless incapable of making a point to their own satisfaction without at least a couple of "fucks" and a "shit" or two. They presumably think this enhances or emphasises the points they make. But I must beg to disagree. It seems to me in almost every case an enfeebling and counterproductive distraction from, and diminution of, the points they are making.

Anyone agree? Who thinks, with me, that the Cat would be a better and more effective forum if "language" became rarer, or even obsolete? Or who is determined to continue with the fucking-and-blinding, and thinks I am nothing but a pompous, po-faced, self-righteous old fart?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:34 AM

It goes with the abusive style that has become prevalent among a cohort of posters.
It replaces actual discussion and I believe dissuades decent folk from contributing.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Amos
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:42 AM

These guys piss in the soup and wonder why the best guests don't come to dinner. I am sure there's a reason somewhere to be found.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:09 AM

MGM - There is language and there is language.

I get tired of vulgarity, as well. But it's less tedious than the language employed in your post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musfucket
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:18 AM

The most appalling language can be found in the demise of the boring thread. Not a fuck, cunt, Willy or poo in it.

When you speak of language, I refer the honourable old git to recent posts by Akenaton and Guest from Sanity. They are disgusting, vile and genuinely upsetting for gay people to stumble across.

Reading the likes of Keith calling it "unfortunate" or Jack the Sailor referring to it as old fashioned is merely a second insult.

Other Mudcat language that needs pulling up includes calling someone a liar because the accuser is too idle to read beyond The Daily M*il website yet pathetic enough to look in the first place because of the low opinion they have of fellow members.

Starting threads on inflammatory subjects and filling the OP with odious crap based on prejudice. That seems to be Mudcat language too.

Moaning about those who expose such crap and refusing to let bigotry, hate and revision of history go unchallenged, that's in there too.

We could write a fucking book. And next year, Keith could revise it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:41 AM

Lend me a telescope with which to see the past.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:43 AM

Musket, I have only called you a liar regarding two blatant lies.

You claimed to have heard BBC report Christians attacking a Muslim school in Nigeria, killing the children and feeding them to pigs.
There is no trace of such a story on BBC or any other news site, and no-one else has heard of any such atrocity because you made it up.

You claimed to have downloaded a quote, but Google could only find it in your post.
You claimed to have downloaded it from "The British Council of Mosques" which does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:45 AM

This section of Mudcat was not devised for people with one strict ideological view, but a platform where all issues could be discussed; whether the issues are "inflammatory" or controversial is neither here nor there, it is the job of administration to decide which subjects are up for debate and which are beyond the pale.

The sight of a group of childish bullies, setting themselves up as self appointed arbiters over what is debated here is unfortunate.
If these people were capable of formulating reasonable responses to the subjects in question, there would be no need for the infantile behaviour and attempted intimidation which has become prevalent.
Personally the abuse does not affect me in the slightest, it just makes obvious the lack of depth and comprehension on the part of the bullies.
However, I agree with MtheGM, that this tactic can be extremely boring for those of us with a real interest in understanding complex issues. Bringing them down to "playground level", serves no purpose other than the bullies long term objective of having this valuable section of the forum closed down.

Orwellian tactics, one might even say "Fascist" in nature?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:50 AM

Moaning about those who expose such crap and refusing to let bigotry, hate and revision of history go unchallenged, that's in there too.

I support you in that, but you do not challenge.
Rude names do not make any kind of case against anyone.

If you can not challenge what people actually say, or make a case of your own, go away and think until you can.
Saying "cunt" "bigot" and "(insert)ophobe" does not count.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 14 - 04:06 AM

While course language doesn't worry me personally, I do find it difficult to recommend Mudcat to people who might, just might be offended. That's sad.

As for the "f" word used in the post immediately above, that's an automatic suspension on some groups I frequent and considered much more offensive than the naming of bodily parts and functions. :-)

It's almost as bad as calling some one an "accordion player"!

Oops! That's done it. Used the "a" word. I'll consider myself suspended.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:10 AM

I too would find it difficult to recommend Mudcat to any decent person, lest they be gay, black, Muslim or a believer in equality.

I doubt the odd fuck hurts anybody. Its what the fuck was aimed at.... As it has been noted by many on these threads that you can't educate pork, verbal abuse is the only language bigots understand. I commend anybody to read yesterday's lecture on gay people by Akenaton on the demise of the boring thread and then tell me this website moderates hatred.

The Council of Mosques by the way does exist. I heard their spokesman on the wireless.. I googled them and got their website too... I put British in the general description to distinguish it for our er.. international audience. As this is an abuse thread, perhaps, and using your "liar" diatribe as an excellent example... Perhaps the children may wish to know why I put TC on the end of most posts aimed at you?

TC

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jack Campin
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:16 AM

Keith may not have heard of it (no surprise there) but Google has:

Council of Mosques

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:30 AM

"Christians attacking a Muslim school in Nigeria, killing the children and feeding them to pigs."
He was possibly wrong about this one - it was in Kenya and they only slit the children's throats, so that makes it all right then!!
"The sight of a group of childish bullies, setting themselves up as self appointed arbiters over what is debated here is unfortunate."
And who has the right to debate it - like new members or non members or those who live in the wrong country - I agree with you, but isn't it about time we let up on Keith - he does his best!!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 10 May 14 - 09:17 AM

I normally pass vulgar comments/posts by, and don't read the contents. If that's the itent, rather than to communicate and share information and perspectives, it works with me.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 09:57 AM

Jack you linked to Tower Hamlets Council of Mosques.
There are many such, for towns or local areas, but know "The Council of Mosques."

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 10:57 AM

Jim, I think you refer to the Turbi school massacre which, unlike Musket's story, was not in Nigeria, did not involve bodies dismembered and fed to pigs, was not Christians attacking Muslims and did actually happen.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:18 AM

No - I refer to the slaughter of Muslims by Christians in Niarobi - which did happen and were children as young as three were slaughtered, mainlt by having their throats cut.
I wonder why massacres by Christians always become either not Christian or unimportant to you - no, I'm lying; I know bloody well it's because you are an obsessive, tunnel-visioned bigot.
Jim Carroll
NIAROBI

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:35 AM

That incident was not in Nairobi or Kenya but in CAR which I referred to above.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:42 AM

Sorry, not referred to above but on the relevant thread.

CAR.
After years of peaceful co-existence, Muslims seized power and began massacring Christians. What you report is the backlash which can not be defended but it was those massacres that caused the hatred.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:46 AM

Still a massacare of Muslims - including children, by Christians, wherever it was.
As I said - they're all at it - why single out Muslims - (one of your favourite excuses for human rights abuses)
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 10 May 14 - 11:57 AM

Musket made up his story.
He said it was "a couple of years ago" when there was no religious violence in CAR, and there has never been such an incident anywhere in the world.
He unequivocally lied.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:45 PM

Funny how my initial animadversions against such as the perversely pertinacious own-undoubted-intelligence-sabotaging foul mouths of the likes of the self-destructive M*sk*t should somehow have transmogrified into yet another episode of the "this one will run & run" Keith·&·Carroll Show. Apart from the everlastingly tedious fuckshitcuntbollox&repeattillyeroutofbreath, some aspects of this forum are so depressingly -- o-ho-hum -- predictable!...

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 12:57 PM

"Keith·&·Carroll Show."
Having now lodged yourself solidly up Keith's arse - it seems now to be the Keith and Mike show
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:09 PM

All your usual charming fragrancy of expression, Jim. Couldn't have come up with a more shining example of precisely the phenomena that I intended this thread to address.

For shame, you scoundrelly cad and bounder!

〠~M~〠

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:17 PM

Yes Keith I lied. And yes, Operation Yewtree has a file on you.

Happy now?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:19 PM

Hope that not too tedious for your o-so-fastidious semantic requirements, michaelr. I intended polemic, not fascination, you know. As I used, in my long-ago teaching days, to tell pupils who complained of boredom: 'Much acquisition of information is, by its nature, boring. School isn't a place of entertainment, and I am not paid to entertain you. If I was, I expect they'd give me more money'.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Janie
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:25 PM

sigh.....

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:26 PM

LOL Michael. I used to get cross with the "This is boooooring!" pupils. I foolishly once roared, "What do you expect, all of you? Do you want me to dance and sing?" Of course the silly little things thought I was serious and there were thrilled gasps of, "Oooh yes pleeease Miss!" Red-faced teacher praying for the bell.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:32 PM

"Couldn't have come up with a more shining example of precisely the phenomena that I intended this thread to address."
I learned from a master Mike - thanks for the lessons.
I've given my opinion on language - 'bad' is very rare - overused is ineffectual - no more.
It's hard not to notice that you only play your 'Keith and Jim' card whnen your protegé is blowing for tugs.
Keith is still a rabid little extremist and I will respond to his extremism - and yours - when I see fit and have the time and inclination.
Once more, none of your business really, unless you care to join in with non-childish mudslinging
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Ed T
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:39 PM

IMO, a good question on the use of profane or offensive speech, is what purpose does it serve in the discussion, and is it important in delivering a important message to others who may be particilating or observing.

In most cases it reflects frustration and anger, versus logic and a calm attitude.

Humour may be one of the cases where vulgar language is more acceptable in society.

A good question: Is it more acceptable to state something offensive I a polite way, or say something non-offensive in a vulgar manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:43 PM

Thanks for compliment implied in "master" -- but what 'lessons'? I don't, as you well know, use such locutions as "lodged solidly up somebody's arse", and have not done so for the past 4 years. You do habitually attribute to other people invented attitudes and usages to suit your own preconceptions -- are you aware of that?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Eliza
Date: 10 May 14 - 01:58 PM

Sometimes swear words can add a funny piquancy to dialogue. They also produce their own rhythm, especially f*** and f******. Consider, "What are you doing Sid?" and, "What the f*** are you doing Sid?"
And "That's the best thing I've heard all day!" or "That's the best f****** thing I've heard all f****** day!" or "What the b***** hell is THAT?" Unsalty language can be a bit bland. I don't myself use a lot of swear words, but many of them are quite acceptable in the right context. We aren't nuns are we?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:23 PM

GUEST,Musfucket: "The most appalling language can be found in the demise of the boring thread. Not a fuck, cunt, Willy or poo in it.
When you speak of language, I refer the honourable old git to recent posts by Akenaton and Guest from Sanity. They are disgusting, vile and genuinely upsetting for gay people to stumble across."

Amos had it right: "These guys piss in the soup and wonder why the best guests don't come to dinner."

Musketfuck is only pissed off because his childish antics aren't getting any traction...but as he said, "Not a fuck, cunt, Willy or poo in it."

Only his..Right, Musketfuck??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:38 PM

So called 'bad language' is a misnomer. It is in fact a very useful tool. Particularly to enable the movement of an immobile component. I have often, when faced with a stubborn nut or bolt, resorted to the ancient Anglo-Saxon mystical incantation, GET FUCKING MOVING YOU LITTLE TWAT! And, in every case, along with liberal application of WD40 and a one and a half lb lump hammer, it has worked.

Now, I am not saying that anyone on here is like a rusty bolt but if I could access the virtual equivalent of ease-it oil and a heavy lever I am sure that the same Anglo-Saxon incantations could well work with out resident intransigents.

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Musket
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:53 PM

Whatever Goofus. But the soup turned rancid when you published posts calling gay people wrong and saying they could be cured.

Not quite sure what they need curing of or even why they should but pissing in the soup just about sums your contribution up.

Sick puppy.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 02:54 PM

Oh, sure. It has indeed its place. There is a good moment in Dorothy L Sayers' Gaudy Night, in which Harriet comes back to college to find that someone has vandalised her room, and smashed up her treasured chessmen with a poker. She suffers an overwhelming moment of silent rage and horror; until, mercifully "she found the relief of bad language". But the kind of overuse of such language around here robs any of us of the potential of that relief. There is no relief to be found in the utterly overused commonplace. That is precisely my objection.

Not convinced? Dear me. Oh pooh! You are misguided...

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Janie
Date: 10 May 14 - 03:05 PM

Thinking of starting an "office" pool as to when the rest of the gang will show up. Hard to know just how to define "the gang." A handful are at the core with a number of others who like to jump into the orgy then jump back out, proclaiming, "not me!"

While I consider myself on the far periphery, there is no question that I participate on occasion, or I would not be posting this.

Life, people and personalities being what they are, there is never a clear line between when shunning is appropriate vs when shunning is sticking one's head in the sand when it comes to the dynamic balancing act of fostering community over time. What I would like to see, because I think this and any community is better and more sustainable for it, is people reflecting on their own roles in contributing to dysfunction, rather than people pointing fingers at one another.

Conflict does not equal dysfunction.

But as I said on another thread, Lord of the Flies dynamics are definitely dysfunctional.

I'm curious (and perhaps suspicious without warrant, MtheGM,) regarding your intention in starting this thread. What was your intention? Have the posts thus far fulfilled your expectations?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 10 May 14 - 04:09 PM

Okay, Mudbutt wants to interject the homosexual thing into this thread, TOO.
You cut and paste, where I said that 'homosexuals were wrong'...but do it on another thread..it's becoming a worn out exercise, in block-headedness, with stubbornly ignorant politicos.

Another thread.

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 10 May 14 - 06:53 PM

Janie, you are trying to psychoanalyse the undefinable. I think. Give over or you will find yourself wondering whether you are daft or of it is everyone else. Trust me. It is the others...

:D tG

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 10 May 14 - 07:08 PM

Janie: What do you find hard to follow in my OP? I don't see how I could have put my reservations as to the seemliness, and the judiciousness [on account of both counterproductive & alienatory effects] of pertinacious use of the sorts of locution I was animadverting against, any more clearly.

Which part (to paraphrase and summarise) of

"constant iteration of what is universally recognised as obscene language is likely to be alienatory to the well-intentioned, and counterproductive in its ultimate effect, there being neither emphasis nor relief to be had in the constant repetition of words which gross over-familiarity has robbed of all emotional, emphatic, or animadvertive effect"

do you not understand?


Turning to the second part of your enquiry, most posts have taken my point to a degree. I am, though, particularly disappointed in Musket's peculiarly crass ill-judgment in his responses. I have generally found him a man of reasonable intellect and perception, and am surprised by his responses here. No doubt he will rise pertinently and sagaciously to the occasion, with a most carefully considered injunction to me to go and fuck myself.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 10 May 14 - 07:43 PM

The odd bit of salty language describing a funny situation is fine depending on how it is said. Having said that if for example a comedy act is all about torrents of bad language throughout just to get a laugh then I do find it tiresome.

When it is directed at another person in an aggressive way then I find it unnecessary and insulting. It would not be tolerated in ordinary life so why do it here?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Wesley S
Date: 10 May 14 - 07:55 PM

Are we done yet?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Janie
Date: 10 May 14 - 08:00 PM

Thanks for answering, MtheGM. I appreciate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 11 May 14 - 01:27 PM

Using such language in an office will get you disciplined.
Using it to a police officer will get you arrested.
In a shop or bar you will not be served.
It is just not acceptable in a public place, which this is.

It has been justified by Musket as a weapon to use against bad people.
Even if there were such people here, as you yourself said, it does not hurt anyone anyway.
It is just unpleasant for everyone and pushes decent folk away.

It has been justified by others as a relief of frustration.
Fair enough.
Use it all you want but don't type it.

If you can not make a case without being abusive, go away and think until you can.
If you can not challenge what someone says (ACTUALLY says) go away and think until you can.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: GUEST
Date: 11 May 14 - 01:39 PM

Or accept that they just might be right?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 11 May 14 - 02:42 PM

What your point, Guest? Can't they be 'right' without obscenities to establish their supposed correctness? If you think not, then pray explain why.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: akenaton
Date: 11 May 14 - 02:53 PM

I don't think foul language is itself the problem, those unable to construct a reasonable response, will retreat into foul language as an intimidation tactic, no matter how "intelligent" they believe themselves to be.

I see little signs of intelligence from the pack of UKers who habitually abuse other members of this forum, simply because they have no reasonable argument to put forward.

Bad pastiche of the Pythons or the Goons, is not a measurement of intelligence in my eyes, I enjoy the company of people who like to debate issues and who can recognise the intricacies of difficult controversial subjects.
As I have said before, I am a manual worker, with only a very basic formal education, but I think I know how an intelligent person behaves.

The problem with foul language, is that some "men" use the words for female genitalia as derogatory terms of abuse, and I am sure that "men" who use that particular form of abuse, have a problem with their relationship with women......Personally, I find such conduct disgusting and would be interested to hear what our Mudcat sisters think of it?

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Keith A of Hertford
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:01 AM

Mike, I do not think Guest meant that.
He appears to be supportive of my post.

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:13 AM

"Using such language in an office will get you disciplined....."
All this is a bit of a diversion really
Inciting race hatred with generiled accusations of cultural implants would be illegal outside the confines of the social media - doesn't stop some people though.
Where is Mary Whitehouse when she is so desperately needed?
"Foul" language is in the ear of the listener - where wold we be without Rabbie Burns and The Earl of Rochester?
Though I do agree about the sexist implications of using women's anatomy as a term of abuse.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat 'language!'
From: Dave the Gnome
Date: 12 May 14 - 10:20 AM

I enjoy the company of people who like to debate issues

We always said you enjoyed a mass debate...

:D tG