|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: What makes you furious?
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Higgs Bosun: quote:
I also wonder if there is a sense of superiority from car drivers: "I have a car and therefore I am of higher status than the poor and insignificant person on the bike."
There's a pecking order among car drivers too. Those of us in small nondescript (low-polluting) models are frequently carved up by people driving gas-guzzling 4x4 monstrosities or low-slung sports cars. Actually, you might be onto something with the open-top idea - I've noticed people in those tend to drive more considerately.
As a cyclist, I think the most frightening situation is going straight on in a dedicated cycle lane at a junction where there's a left lane controlled by a separate filter light... you have cars on both sides and the constant fear that someone will cut across the cycle lane without noticing you. Is that what you meant by suicide lanes, Karl?
No, they're bad but marginally better because at least you're not put on the left of left turning traffic. The Suicide Lanes are the one ones in the gutter that lead up the left hand side of the lane containing traffic some of which will turn left.
Left filter lanes are of Satan, especially where they're the type where the left hand lane becomes a left filter requiring the cyclist to change lanes into a right-hand lane where he's not expected. Especially bad when they occur uphill at around 10% gradient as Sheffield is particularly fond of so you're having to do this lane change wobbling up at 5-8mph.
With tramlines.
[ 25. July 2013, 13:28: Message edited by: Karl: Liberal Backslider ]
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards . Other Christian sites would not allow it and some of the secular sites to do not allow swearing. Not every one wants to see the F word and the C word banded about when reading posts. I think that the Hell site ought to be banned, it is absolutely disgusting and I have now stopped reading it, not that I used to read it much before. Nobody seems to realise how offensive SOFs has become has become, even on Purgatory.
I've posted on those other Christian boards. They're generally pretty dull. Allowing - erm - freely worded expression - on SoF is one of the things that like it or not contributes to its diversity and liveliness.
Ditto Hell. Do you know, historically, why the Ship has a Hell? It's because, ultimately, it needed one.
I am aware that some secular boards don't allow naughty words. This is because they are not specifically aimed at adult debate. SoF is. The belief is that like the telly after 9pm, growm-ups can either cope with the contents of Roger's Profanisaurus, or know where the Off switch is.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.
Around here, the latter. The roads are sufficiently wide that a bicycle, several feet of space, and a car, very nearly all fit in half a road. On a typical UK road, I'd probably agree with you that 2 abreast is easier to overtake safely.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Left filter lanes are of Satan, especially where they're the type where the left hand lane becomes a left filter requiring the cyclist to change lanes into a right-hand lane where he's not expected. Especially bad when they occur uphill at around 10% gradient as Sheffield is particularly fond of so you're having to do this lane change wobbling up at 5-8mph.
There is a cycle lane round here that does exactly that - there's a filter lane on the right for cars turning right, and a "cycle lane" marked by dashed white lines crossing this diagonally, for bicycles that want to go straight on. And yes, it's up one of our rare hills (but no trams!). I've seen cyclists come close to being flattened several times.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
Yep, that's it.
Car moving forward intending to turn left. Driver knows perhaps that there is a pedestrian a few metres behind car. Driver uses mirror to check traffic behind and to right, eyeballs oncoming traffic, and looks into side road to ensure its empty. One last glance at mirror and moves off at about five or six metres a second. Pedestrian goes at two metres per second max, so car clears junction before pedestrian tries to cross.
Replace pedestrian with cyclist moving at same speed as car. Whoops!
Even worse if car is 18 metre artic. Driver can't see a thing to left, and when turning vehicle squeezes space between corner and kerb, or even overhangs kerb, forcing cyclist onto sidewalk at best, under wheels at worst.
Solution: cyclist positions themself in front of motor vehicle where they can be clearly seen, in lane, at least a metre away from kerb.
No solution: cyclist slows down or waits by side of road. Why no solution? Because they are then in the same danger from the next car or the next.
Some of the problem is ignorance. Cyclists often genuinely don't realise how restricted a view motorists have. Especially large vehicles. You are on a bike, you can see and hear all sorts of things. You are regularly looking behind you and to your right and left (or you are if you have any sense). Drivers can't see you the way you see them, they can't hear much at all, and they rarely look round - they are actively taught not to, they are trained to keep their eyes on the road ahead. So they really don't know you are there, so you have to make yourself visible by placing yourself in their filed of vision.
Drivers often genuinely don't realise how fast normal cyclists can go, or how much danger they are in from even small potholes and obstacles in the road, or how hard it is for them to start uphill. So they swerve or wobble or even change lanes to avoid things you can't see. And they are sometimes very reluctant to come to a complete stop if they can keep moving forward even at less than walking pace, especially uphill.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
As a comment on how wonderful bike lanes are in this country: on the lovely CS2 London Superhighway - 3 cyclist deaths and counting, there's a blue painted lane down part of the bus lane which is regularly parked over. Some of the junctions with lights have blue cross-hatched boxes where bikes are supposed to wait in front of the traffic. Guess what is mostly sitting in those boxes? Yep, cars.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
I'd agree with Ken that a lot of the problem is caused by ignorance. Some of the rest of it is just bad manners, with a side-order of entitlement: 'Is 20 seconds of my time worth risking someone else's life? Hell, yes!'
It's amusing (in a twisted way, and provided you still have all your limbs intact) when you catch up with these inconsiderate drivers at the next set of traffic lights.
I've become much more cautious about cycling since I learned to drive and realised how difficult it is to see cyclists in the dark... even for those of us who bother to look.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
Those who use foul language in rational discourse merely betray the poverty of their vocabulary and/or imagination.
Discuss.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Those who tie themselves into knots to avoid sullying their lips with 'foul' language would not recognise righteous indignation if it bit them in the arse.
Flanders and Swann disapproved of the indiscriminate use of swear words because 'if all these words come into common use we will have nothing left for special occasions'. They were not opposed to all use of strong language.
Furthermore, ideas of what constitutes foul language vary considerably.
I hope I have used enough polysyllabic words by now to convince you that I do not suffer from poverty of vocabulary, but if not I have plenty more where those came from.
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ethne Alba
Shipmate
# 5804
|
Posted
i expect the Jewish leaders of the time were fairly furious when one JC took to chucking the furnture around....?
Spect he didn't use 'nice ' language either.
Or is it perfectly reasonable to imagine Christ hurling furniture around withOUT being furious?
Now THAT's creepy.....
Posts: 3126 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.
Around here, the latter. The roads are sufficiently wide that a bicycle, several feet of space, and a car, very nearly all fit in half a road. On a typical UK road, I'd probably agree with you that 2 abreast is easier to overtake safely.
It doesn't make any difference in Newport. The majority of cyclists are on the pavement, and a increasing number are on the wrong side of the road (yes, facing the oncoming traffic including other cyclists and bikers!).
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moo
Ship's tough old bird
# 107
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
i expect the Jewish leaders of the time were fairly furious when one JC took to chucking the furnture around....?
Spect he didn't use 'nice ' language either.
Paul could be very outspoken. When he spoke out against church leadership that said all new Christians should be circumcised, he had this to say. quote:
I wish they who trouble you would cut themselves off.
Here are other translations of this verse.
Moo
--------------------
Kerygmania host
---------------------
See you later, alligator.
Posts: 20365 | From: Alleghany Mountains of Virginia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eirenist:
Those who use foul language in rational discourse merely betray the poverty of their vocabulary and/or imagination.
Discuss.
Only true if it constantly permeates everything. Which would be true of ANY word, like, that, like, got used all the time, like, when it totally, like wasn't necessary.
Whereas a well placed swear word can be a thing of great power. I'm not particularly fond, for example, of having swear words liberally strewn through the songs I listen to, but there is a Pearl Jam song called 'Jeremy' that has a line: "he seemed a harmless little fuck". And there is simply no way to have anything like the same impact that this has in context. The swear word conveys a sense of contempt that is crucial to the song's narrative. It's absolutely the right word for the moment, and it doesn't display a lack of thought. Quite the reverse.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
i expect the Jewish leaders of the time were fairly furious when one JC took to chucking the furnture around....?
Spect he didn't use 'nice ' language either.
Or is it perfectly reasonable to imagine Christ hurling furniture around withOUT being furious?
Now THAT's creepy.....
Not using "nice" language doesn't mean swearing when he did it.
No one said he wasn't furious, it's just pretty unlikely I think that he used language of the "f" variety. Since Jesus did have a considerable amount to say about love and justice - and swearing at someone or to provoke then is hardly love - I'd take it that he didn't swear. He didn't need to for a start and being the ultimate example to us, he wouldn't want to.
The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they
a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact
If the answer to a and b is "no" then their swearing is simply for effect. There are lots of better ways to achieve this effect without that kind of language.
if it's c then it simply demonstrates the cultural conditioning they've got into.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards . Other Christian sites would not allow it and some of the secular sites to do not allow swearing. Not every one wants to see the F word and the C word banded about when reading posts. I think that the Hell site ought to be banned, it is absolutely disgusting and I have now stopped reading it, not that I used to read it much before. Nobody seems to realise how offensive SOFs has become has become, even on Purgatory.
IIRC the argument in the past has always been that this is not a Christian web site.
Be that as it may, I find swearing distasteful (in any context) whatever its source. It's sad that, on the ship, a proportion of those who recognise themselves as believers are as culturally conditioned in this area as everyone else.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
quote:
Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
Is it? Which is easier to overtake? 20 cyclists 2 abreast, and therefore forming a group of 10 cycle lengths, or them in a long line forming a group of 20 cycle lengths? The former requires a smaller break in the oncoming traffic.
Around here, the latter. The roads are sufficiently wide that a bicycle, several feet of space, and a car, very nearly all fit in half a road. On a typical UK road, I'd probably agree with you that 2 abreast is easier to overtake safely.
It doesn't make any difference in Newport. The majority of cyclists are on the pavement, and a increasing number are on the wrong side of the road (yes, facing the oncoming traffic including other cyclists and bikers!).
I've heard of Salmon Cyclists but not actually seen one in the flesh. These things tend to be geographical; anecdotal evidence is that red light jumping is particularly popular in London.
The pavement thing is weird. Why does an adult cycle on the pavement? I can only think of two reasons:
1. They're terrified to go on the road; I blame lack of cycle training - my local school has recently stopped doing Bikability for no reason I can gather other than "can't be arsed."
2. They started on the pavement as a child (as we all do) and have never realised that that's actually a societal concession (contrary to popular belief there is no law allowing children under a certain age or on bikes smaller than a particular size to use pavements) and that when they grow up the road is where they're meant to be.
Interestingly, if I do a count of cyclists on my way to work I generally find that it's about 50:50 - the 50% on the pavements are generally cheap full-suspension "mountain bikes" (scare quotes because they would actually fall to bits if you took them anywhere more challenging than a canal towpath, partly because the entire bike costs less than a serviceable rear suspension unit, and partly because the whole bike is made of cheese) with the saddle way too low. I've almost never seen a road bike illegally on the pavement. That could be used in support of either of my two hypotheses above.
--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.
Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
Reading all those posts about cycling reminded me of the Sunday I couldn't make it to meeting because of some group who had adopted the local lanes for some social day out. They hadn't put up one of those CAUTION CYCLISTS notice, with a date, which would have affected my leaving time, and possibly route, though there isn't much choice.
The particular lane being a very odd one, with quite wide parts with single lane parts between them, and bendy, the options for overtaking are very limited.
First I came across an odd cyclist, followed by another, who was prepared to slow a bit in a wide part (I flashed my emergency lights in thanks) but then I found the peleton. They were not racing, which would have been an adequate speed, but pootling along for a pleasant Sunday outing. They took, initially, no notice of my presence. Then they decided that it would be appropriate to go into single file, which would have worked on a fairly straight road of constant width with two lanes. Totally impossible on the road concerned. 20 odd bikes, spread out, single lane so the option of giving them enough space wasn't there, and the chance of meeting an oncoming vehicle....
I had to give up and go down a side lane to find my way home. Only to find that that route would have been a no better alternative as there were oncoming cyclists on that lane as well.
The other infuriating road users round here are the drivers who feel that the 30 mph limit doesn't mean them, and insist on overtaking me on one particular part (two lanes, good visibility) as if I have deliberately been obstructing them. Mind you, I'd rather have them in front than behind, so close I can't read their number plate.
Oh, and back to cyclists - the other Sunday, different road, but still difficult to overtake on, I was behind a single lycra wearer for some time - he was going at a fair speed, I gave him some room ahead of me, and when I eventually got past, he waved. Much appreciated, that. Showed he knew I was there, and appreciated the way I had been driving.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards.
I always wondered what type of person regularly writes in to Ofcom...
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Penny S
Shipmate
# 14768
|
Posted
I've read Karl's link. This is why my bike is in my garage and I don't use it. My architect designed village is a bit of a Milton Keynes Mini-me, apart from not having cycle paths. It bans bikes from the many footpaths.
The bit of road on which the cars who do not observe the speed limit, see above, gave me the heebie-jeebies on the one time I cycled down it to buy replacement brake blocks.
I hardly ever see utility cyclists about, and I know why.
This causes a sort of slow burn irritation rather than fury.
Posts: 5833 | Registered: May 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
But how does a liberal scattering of offensive words constitute 'swearing'? You're not invoking the name of God to bear witness to the truth of what you're saying. It is unfortunate that, partly due to the historical development of Christianity, we have come to regard the act of love as disgusting. Like the name of God, it should not be invoked lightly. It is a divine gift and a foretaste of Heaven, too precious to be used as an expletive.
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards.
What makes me furious is aberrant apostrophe's. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, swearing has it's proponents and it's opponents; its well known that faulty education is to blame.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they
a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact
a) sometimes b and c) often
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I'm not sure what the 'real test' means in any case. All language is context dependent, so what?
The fact I don't use certain words and expressions everywhere, doesn't really invalidate using them somewhere, does it? For example, I call my wife certain affectionate and idiosyncratic terms, which I would not use to the milkman, or my neighbour. I can't see that this has any implications for language use, except that it is sometimes specialized, sometimes not.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they
a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact
I use foul and abusive language far more on the Ship than in RL, simply because it isn't real life and one has fewer tools available.
In RL I tend to speak slower and drop the tone of my voice for emphasis or when I might otherwise let rip. I abruptly stop talking when interrupted if I am interrupted! That gets through after about three goes.
The children didn't pay much attention when Daddy swore, but when I spoke slowly, they did and still do.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Curiosity killed ...
Ship's Mug
# 11770
|
Posted
Different contexts allow different use of language - what is acceptable on the workshop floor is not necessarily the language appreciated by your mother (daughter, please take note).
The armed forces tend to the earthy in their forms of expression, so it's worth checking the origins of abbreviations and acronyms. I was told that my language was unacceptable when asked on a training day if anyone knew what PPPPPP meant. I did, but I also thought the guy would have checked it before use or asking the question. It did also make me think QED
And going back to the original question of what makes me furious, the only times I've been so angry that I've acted without thinking were when people were being hurt. I still don't know how I caught up with the leader of a group of scouts in the Lake District up on the tops in snowy conditions, snow up to my knees, packed up, an asthmatic with cold and exercise as triggers, but I was furious. This leader was losing one of his troop - one poor lad miles behind and struggling. There was no-one keeping an eye at the back of the troop. I stormed up to him and told him that he needed to take better care of his charges and not lose them in snowy conditions. The guys I was with were embarrassed, so goodness how mortified the leader was, and he was crimson by the time I'd finished. However, when we met them again later in the day, the lad who was struggling had two others with him back marking, carrying his pack between them. So I still don't feel that guilty.
--------------------
Mugs - Keep the Ship afloat
Posts: 13794 | From: outiside the outer ring road | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It just seems odd to me that people come to this forum, which is known as a lively and irreverent one, and then complain. There are tons of nice polite Christian forums, where swearing isn't allowed, aren't there?
It's like going to the pub, and complaining that you don't like all the alcohol around.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
I'm not sure what the 'real test' means in any case. All language is context dependent, so what?
The fact I don't use certain words and expressions everywhere, doesn't really invalidate using them somewhere, does it? For example, I call my wife certain affectionate and idiosyncratic terms, which I would not use to the milkman, or my neighbour. I can't see that this has any implications for language use, except that it is sometimes specialized, sometimes not.
Yes to this. There are formal and informal types of language. The suggestion that I must only use terminology I would comfortably use everywhere would mean I would spend my entire life speaking like I was at a podium. Or writing legislation. No contractions for starters. No for starters for starters.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Yes to that. We have an incredibly complex and subtle multi-tracked communication system, which can adapt to many different situations and speakers. Thus, if I go to see my GP, I don't slap her on the back, and shout 'awright, me old china'.
We are multi-tracked, not mono-tracked.
I can understand people not liking swearing. Actually, I don't like swearing bans! What next?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
The real test for those who argue that it is perfectly ok to use swear words is to ask them whether they
a) use it in church from the pulpit
b) whether they'd use it to their children or parents
c) where do you go - that is, what do you use - now those words have really lost their impact
If the answer to a and b is "no" then their swearing is simply for effect. There are lots of better ways to achieve this effect without that kind of language.
if it's c then it simply demonstrates the cultural conditioning they've got into.
Replacing searing with sex in your examples. Wouldn't have sex on the pulpit? Then do not anywhere else.
As Sioni and others have mentioned, this communication form is limited. We lose tone, expression and body movement.
Several points here.
A swear word can serve as emphasis that is lost online.
Swear words are far from the most hurtful or unChristian language I've seen used on the Ship.
Your abhorrence demonstrates your cultural conditioning.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
It's also about forum rules, isn't it? Obviously, forums differ widely, and I tend to avoid those which ban swearing, as I suspect they are going to be too polite and reverent for me. For others, they are probably just right. Horses for courses.
Don't go in the steakhouse, if you are a vegetarian, or love horses.
[ 26. July 2013, 15:44: Message edited by: quetzalcoatl ]
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
wishandaprayer
Shipmate
# 17673
|
Posted
Surely this isn't the place for people to impose their culturally formed (evolved?! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif) ) views onto others. It all stinks of total moral absolutism - I know the best way, so you better fall in line.
Thanks, but no thanks.
Posts: 94 | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
mark_in_manchester
not waving, but...
# 15978
|
Posted
Moo said
quote:
Paul could be very outspoken
Aye - what about that bit where he's talking about his unimpeachable high-class Jewish credentials, and then comes the punchline (KJV I think) "I consider it all but dung".
In other words..."what a load of ****!".
Strong language can convey strong emotional punch, to me, and we're emotional creatures. IMV it's a vital part of speech - but fails when mis-used for inappropriate purposes, which is what I guess this bit (bad language) of the thread is about.
But over all, this is a thread about fury! Perhaps strong language might be expected.
The thread has me reading about the seven deadlies, and Wrath in particular. Anyone have any insights on historical disciplines for growing out of it? Perhaps that needs a new thread?
--------------------
"We are punished by our sins, not for them" - Elbert Hubbard
(so good, I wanted to see it after my posts and not only after those of shipmate JBohn from whom I stole it)
Posts: 1596 | Registered: Oct 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Your abhorrence demonstrates your cultural conditioning. [/QB]
And what culture might that be? Do tell!
[ 26. July 2013, 23:14: Message edited by: ExclamationMark ]
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by wishandaprayer:
Surely this isn't the place for people to impose their culturally formed (evolved?! ) views onto others. It all stinks of total moral absolutism - I know the best way, so you better fall in line.
Thanks, but no thanks.
It works both ways - from those who abhor swearing and from those who practice it.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about forum rules, isn't it?
Sort of .... but more an informed discussion about forum rules.
Most people just look foolish when swearing. If you can switch it on and off, why don't you use the off switch all the time? What point are you trying to make, what are you aiming to gain or look like?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about forum rules, isn't it?
Sort of .... but more an informed discussion about forum rules.
Most people just look foolish when swearing. If you can switch it on and off, why don't you use the off switch all the time? What point are you trying to make, what are you aiming to gain or look like?
Well, if you don't like swearing, why do you come here? There are tons of forums which ban it.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most people just look foolish when swearing.
This is your perception, not a universal truth.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RuthW:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
Most people just look foolish when swearing.
This is your perception, not a universal truth.
As is anyone who says that swearing is ok.
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eirenist
Shipmate
# 13343
|
Posted
It's all about perception, isn't it?
'I use vigorous language, you are a bit outspoken, he is a foul-mouthed boor.'
--------------------
'I think I think, therefore I think I am'
Posts: 486 | From: Darkest Metroland | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Also about free speech?
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It's also about forum rules, isn't it?
Sort of .... but more an informed discussion about forum rules.
Most people just look foolish when swearing. If you can switch it on and off, why don't you use the off switch all the time? What point are you trying to make, what are you aiming to gain or look like?
Well, if you don't like swearing, why do you come here? There are tons of forums which ban it.
I've never been a fan of the "If you can't stand the heat, stay out of the kitchen" attitude as it can exclude the very person who can give a warning when the group is headed in the wrong direction*. While the 10C's don't forbid swearing it's clear from them, the board guidelines and the FAQs that "strong language" should be used creatively.
*eg, "Are you sure that strawberry omelette needs anchovies, Heston?"
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
I am usually very creative with swearing. Occasionally, I fall into the mundane and the quotidian, but I usually recover myself, and enter into another purple patch, even Keatsian at times, I venture to say.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by barrea:
What makes me furious is the fact that Ship of Fools won't clean up it's act and ban all swearing from it's boards.
What makes me furious is aberrant apostrophe's.
Sorry to offend you, but at 86 years old I have only just found out what aberrant apostrophe is.
I was too busy working at 14 years old to learn all the details.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
It just seems odd to me that people come to this forum, which is known as a lively and irreverent one, and then complain. There are tons of nice polite Christian forums, where swearing isn't allowed, aren't there?
It's like going to the pub, and complaining that you don't like all the alcohol around.
I have already stopped going on the Hell site I don't want to stop all the posts in purgatory. but it might have to come to that.
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740
|
Posted
Well, I am very sorry about that. I think that at the age of 86, you are entitled to some comfort and ease. I shall endeavour to reduce my sweary quotient if I hail you on the fo'c'sle.
--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.
Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
barrea
Shipmate
# 3211
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Well, I am very sorry about that. I think that at the age of 86, you are entitled to some comfort and ease. I shall endeavour to reduce my sweary quotient if I hail you on the fo'c'sle.
Good of you
--------------------
Therefore having been justified by faith,we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ.
Romans 5:1
Posts: 1050 | From: england | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by quetzacoatl
Well, if you don't like swearing, why do you come here? There are tons of forums which ban it.
I don't really understand this view which seems to amount to the idea that you must either like everything about ship of fools or nothing about it. Swearing doesn't bother me at all although I don't see the point of it, but there are several things I don't like about the ship of fools. The reason I sometimes come here is that there are also several things I do like.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I almost never swear. I believe swearing is too useful to be indulged in willy-nilly. It is a great way to vent anger and frustration - thus I use it as sparingly as I can.
This has the added benefit that when I do swear, my family and friends know that I am truly in earnest!
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
[ 30. July 2013, 06:52: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
