 sj |
||
|
||
BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,MMario Date: 06 Apr 05 - 08:38 AM silly as the moniker "troll" may be - it is a generally accepted term for a specific type of behavior on the internet. It doe not and never has depended on being anonymous. nor does calling a troll a troll equate to holding the "higher ground" morally - when it is true it is merely identification of a behavior. However - this is a much a judgement call as other types of interaction - such as gender bashing or sexual harrassment - where intent and perception can be radically different. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,The Shambles Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:40 PM silly as the moniker "troll" may be - it is a generally accepted term for a specific type of behavior on the internet. It doe not and never has depended on being anonymous. It is just another silly name to call someone and its use probably says a lot more about those who need to do the name-calling that it does about who is being called names. I am surprised that with all the name-calling or public speculation with other posters about whether this name actually fits me (as if this were important) - it appears to be have been overlooked that this thread was created only as intentional 'Troll - bait'!!! The thread was not the originator's true opinion but posted just to stir things-up (or as a joke) and the originator adopted a bogus handle in order to post it. But there does not appear to be any rush or even any great need to speculate publicly - with other posters - about the orginator's motives, mental condition or any need call the originator of this thread any names. Sadly to some, the term Troll has largely come to mean an expressed view that some may not be agree with. Especially when the poster expressing their honest view in moderate language - makes no attempt at being anonymous. When this is the case - the name-calling and speculation to other posters - about the poster in question - could beeen seen as just another way of making yet another a needless personal judgement of another poster. Perhaps it is time that we - and the internet - grew-up and left all the name-calling back in the schoolyard? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST,MMario Date: 06 Apr 05 - 01:57 PM Shambles - if you think that name calling has "been left in the shchoolyard" then I have to assume you totally ignore politics, news reporting, movies, television and most forms of public communication - all of which are and have been rife with name calling for decades. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST Date: 06 Apr 05 - 02:11 PM Which I do not use as justification - rather I am hoping that you will infer as I mean to imply; that it is not plausible to hold mudcat posters to a standard the rest of the world ignores. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 06 Apr 05 - 04:50 PM The difference between trolling and trawling? As used in the US, trolling involves single lines with multiple hooks; trawling uses nets and weights and scrapes along the bottom of the ocean. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 05 - 05:54 PM that it is not plausible to hold mudcat posters to a standard the rest of the world ignores. Your mission, Jim, should you decide to accept it, is to diagram that sentence. This tape will self-destruct in thirty seconds... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 06 Apr 05 - 05:58 PM Which I do not use as justification - rather I am hoping that you will infer as I mean to imply; that it is not plausible to hold mudcat posters to a standard the rest of the world ignores. It has always seemed to me that we have a choice - we can always carry on trying to set a better example here - or we can use this as an excuse and blame the rest of the world - and behave just as badly and set as poor an example as we like. We are ALL of us accountable for our actions are we not? It has never made sense to me - for us here to judge critise our Governments and official bodies, lok down uopm them and act superior - if we act just as badly and set this example. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Once Famous Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:02 PM fuckashitpiss Just felt like saying that. Now back to regular censorship talk, brought to you by the nuns of Mudcat. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: John MacKenzie Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:03 PM Well it seemed to hit the spot, and knocked you off track for a while, so all in all I think it was worth it.;~) Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:12 PM And Martin, it's just fine for you to say "fuckashitpiss" occasionally - as long as it isn't part of a personal attack. If saying "fuckashitpiss" makes you feel good, it's O.K. We want you to feel good. -Sister Mary Joe Offer, R.S.V.P.- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:24 PM We want you to feel good. We do? Who is this 'we' you speak for?
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Jeri Date: 06 Apr 05 - 06:46 PM MMMPph. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Deckman Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:22 PM Joe ... just to help broaden the general level of linguistics within the MC community: "fuckashitpiss" ... in Finnish ... is "santanaan pericoles." We might get a complaint from a mudcatter or two in Rovaniemi, or Helsinki, but I rather doubt it! CHEERS, Bob |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Peace Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:25 PM The true test Grasshopper is this: Can you say it ten times fast? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Deckman Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:43 PM Yes, I can .... and I frequantly do. Bob! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Jeri Date: 06 Apr 05 - 07:46 PM Shambles, Sister Mary Joe "I'm Too Sexy For My Habit" Offer, of (and obviously speaking for) the order of nuns known as the Sisters of NO Mercy, has gone to look for a Ruler. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: jpk Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:39 PM let us test the censors and may god bless see,they aint no govt censors around here |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Once Famous Date: 06 Apr 05 - 09:55 PM Joe, if I called you Joe Orifice, would you consider it a personal attack? Just asking. BTW, fuckashitpiss was a term used in a pop novel from the 1960s called "Candy" It has nothing to do with me feeling good. Big Mick on the other hand, I am sure got quite a charge out of it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: katlaughing Date: 06 Apr 05 - 11:06 PM Jeri, are the Sisters of NO Mercy high church? If so, perhaps some posters have confused a censer for censorship...all that incense can really get up your nose, ya know?**bg** |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: catspaw49 Date: 07 Apr 05 - 12:06 AM Describing Terry Southern as a pop writer? Yeah, I guess so and more is the pity. The best of the post-beat generation writers, he was a modern day Swift. "Candy" was a beautiful Swiftian take on Voltaire's Candide that he sort of knocked off on the side as he wrote the story and screenplay for "Dr. Strangelove." Simply amazing amount of talent. He also wrote the screenplay for "Easy Rider" but agreed to share the credit with Peter Fonda and Dennis Hopper. But if you are a TS fan, Jack Nicholson's speech around the campfire about Venus is pure Terry Southern. Everything he did was done with an ironic twist.....or ten. His contributions became the standard of style and made him famous enough to be one of the folks on the front of the Beatles Sgt. Pepper album. The anarchistic and obscene blended with the ironic. Terry Southern changed the entire landscape of American writing and in the doing so becmae lost himself. Everybody to some degree now imitates parts of Terry Southern while he is relegated back to the background as a pop writer. Truth is that Terry Southern was (died in the mid 90's) and is a bigger influence on American writing and writers than Steinbeck or Hemmingway and a classic piece of satire like "Candy" is sadly only thought of as a cheap porn novel. Spaw |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Peace Date: 07 Apr 05 - 01:41 AM A google search turns up three sites whereupon the term 'fuckashitpiss' may be found. However, when the terms are separated, a google search turns up 670,000 sites. When the separated terms are put in quotation marks, two sites turn up. FYI. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:09 AM Martin, if you called me that once or twice, I'd put up with it - but I probably wouldn't think of it as a compliment. I don't remember "fuckashitpiss" from Candy, and I don't remember the irony. I guess I have to admit that all I remember is the cheap porn... Hey, I was a teenager when I read it. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Wolfgang Date: 07 Apr 05 - 05:50 AM Is it fuck-as-hit-piss or fuck-a-shit-piss? Wolfgang |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Once Famous Date: 07 Apr 05 - 03:50 PM fuckashitpiss as you see it here was the way it was used, as I remember when Candy took the hunchback's hump into her frontal (Joe)orifice. Sorry, Joe. trying to behave but all of that bleeping is unfair and I keep getting PMs from people on why the few politically correct here are ruining some fun for everyone else. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 08 Apr 05 - 04:32 AM OK, Martin, that's twice. Now, if you say that "orifice" thing a third time, I'm really going to get my feelings hurt. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: John MacKenzie Date: 08 Apr 05 - 06:14 AM Are you saying that you want anarchy Martin? Because that is what we would have without some form of moderation on this site. I'm quite sure a few people have left the site because of the sort of posts that you and others make. I am also sure that they far outweigh the unnamed supporters that you allude to in your post @ 0350. I also don't think you are right to call it political correctness, it is more a common decency and respect for others thing. You don't know everybody that posts on here, so you can't know who is, and who isn't offended by bad language, from what I read we certainly seem to have a lot of churchgoers on this site, and I can't imagine they are overjoyed about it. There are women and kids too, I don't know about your family but I still feel awkward if I swear in front of my 37 year old son and his partner, it's an upbringing thing. You can't afford egocentricity when you're among such a mixed bunch of people. Giok |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: jacqui.c Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:55 AM Well said Giok. I can't say that bad language per se causes me great offence personally but the gratuitous and personal use, to which you put it Martin, IS offensive and, basically, boring. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: George Papavgeris Date: 08 Apr 05 - 03:58 PM Agree Jacqui - unless it is a medical condition. Is there such a thing as Tourette's Syndrome in writing? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Once Famous Date: 08 Apr 05 - 05:20 PM Hmmmmmmmmmm, [Bleep - personal attack] Giok. I'm sorry if you embarrass so easy. If you feel awkward with your 37 year old son and his uh, "partner" I'm sure you probably have your own heartache for other reasons. Actually, I don't really care all that much who has hang-ups here and who doesn't. Maybe you think sex is dirty, also. Plenty of you good churchgoers have been known to think that. El Greko, before you start analyzing medical conditions, first go to a gumball machine and get your medical licesnce. OK? that will make you more qualified for your diagnosis than you already are I believe. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: John MacKenzie Date: 08 Apr 05 - 05:49 PM I knew you wouln't understand Martin. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: George Papavgeris Date: 08 Apr 05 - 07:17 PM No need Martin - a computer is sufficient, the Internet has all the info we need. It seems my hunch was right. There is a link between Tourette and scatological writing; there is even a term for it: "Coprographia". Take a look at this article on Tourettes and coprographia. Fascinating reading. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: jacqui.c Date: 08 Apr 05 - 10:43 PM I was thinking the same myself George. Sublime music and tacky words! Maybe we have another Mozart with us! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 09 Apr 05 - 04:40 PM Martin, you are still under 100 percent review because of your history of combative conduct. Please remember that your status here is strictly as a noncombatant. I thought you had been improving, but maybe not. I had to [bleep] a lot of messages from the past couple days. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 10 Apr 05 - 07:29 AM Joe is that your personal opinion or the Official Mudcat view - of 'we'? If it was the latter - should it be in an editorial comment - so this is clear? Let he is without sin etc. http://www.keyway.ca/htm2004/20040811.htm |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Peace Date: 10 Apr 05 - 05:04 PM If I could lift it I'd throw it. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Ebbie Date: 11 Apr 05 - 01:48 AM El Greko and Jacqui, that's a fascinating subject. I was of course aware of Tourette's but I had no idea there was such a thing as its equivalent in writing. It opens the door (book?) to lots more reading and learning. Thanks to you both. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Rt Revd Sir jOhn from Hull Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:42 PM waht all this is about? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Ebbie Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:48 PM Go back to sleep, jOhn. Tomorrow is another day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Once Famous Date: 11 Apr 05 - 05:57 PM Joe, I fart in your general direction. If one person reads it before you act like God, that's OK with me. Giok obviously did. And it wasn't a personal attack, either. It was an opinion which you have censored.
-joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: The Shambles Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:20 AM Shambles thinks I'm too generous to you. Don't test me. You could quote me correctly on many things - but you choose not to. I have never accused you of being generous to anyone (except possibly to yourself). I have evidenced your inefficiency when it comes to having any affect on preventing abusive personal attacks - but that is not the same thing as saying you are generous. Please don't put words in my mouth. There is no need for you ever to mention this or any other poster's name in ether your postings or your editing comments - so please don't. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Peace Date: 12 Apr 05 - 02:25 AM Shambles said, "Let he is without sin etc." I replied, "If I could lift it I'd throw it." And not one of you got even a little chuckle outta that? You guys gotta take some of my meds, man. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:40 PM Gee, we're all really sorry, Brucie. Would a polite titter make up for for our negligence in not appreciating your joke? Or will you settle only for a full-snorting guffaw now? [snort, snort...] -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Ebbie Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:48 PM Actually, it not only made me chuckle, it made me think. Ayers Rock, right? I got to wondering how it came to be. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:50 PM brucie I got the joke honest! I even googled Rock of Gibralter to throw one back at you, but the phone rang. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Ebbie Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:52 PM Oh, and I was also reminded me of the story where a naughty little kid sent out to fetch a switch from a bush for his own whipping comes back in distress. He says: I couldn't find a switch but here's a wock you can fwow at me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Joe Offer Date: 12 Apr 05 - 04:53 PM See, Brucie? We really do appreciate you. -Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: John MacKenzie Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:01 PM Uluru Ebbie. G ¦¬] |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Once Famous Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:02 PM Joe, I did not use one obscenity in the post you bleeped. What you did was censor a personal opinion I made on a person's lifestyle and it wasn't even the poster himself. basically I felt sorry for the poster that said he has a male relative who's "partner" he was squeemish about using obscenities around. I basically said that I was glad I didn't have those issues. I believe you went a little too far overboard in your great haste to censor me for a personal observation/opinion on a lifestyle which can't even be expressed. I don't find it politically incorrect to say that I find the homosexual lifestyle somewhat offensive. I would say that many others do, also.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: GUEST Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:10 PM When do you come into contact with the homosexual lifestyle that causes you offence? What particular aspects of it offends you? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: Mudcat censorship - a proposal From: Once Famous Date: 12 Apr 05 - 05:17 PM Uh, let's start with lisping men who swish and flaunt it and butt fuck. Stereotype? Yep. Most stereotypes are sure based on some truth. |
