# What's Proper, and What's NOT on ehMac?



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A recent incident has brought to mind the question, What is proper decorum on ehMac for materials in postings?

I think the question requires an answer from the mods, as I for one think the policy is rather grey and needs clarification.

Here is how it unfolds. A member posts a funny picture of a Scot which finally debunks what is worn under a kilt. I post it in another thread, and it is edited out of my post, and instead linked for posters to view.


> EDIT: Even though the picture is incredibly funny, it is a tad crude, especially since it shows genitalia. It's always best to just link to that kind of picture.


I check back and see the original poster has also now linked the picture in an edit. The picture by the way, to my mind is about as offensive as posting a picture of Michaelangelo's David.

Meanwhile, in numerous other threads, some posters seem to be free to post Graemlins mooning other posters, giving them the "double finger" and peppering the posts with things like f#@k, s*&t, WTF (this even appears in Subject lines) and comments like: don't carry walkie talkies or sit in fu$kin' trees. Other posters notice this type of language too:


> As much as a admire your moxie, do you think we could remember this is a family show?


Where are the mods when it comes to these types of things which some members consider much more offensive than human nudity.

So Mr. Mayor, Heart and Chealion, help me out here. I am confused as to your wishes.

If I offended anyone with the post of the kilt picture, I sincerely apologize.

BUT, what is your intention regarding the examples cited above, why are they allowed, and can we expect more of this type of language seeping onto the pages of ehMac?

Cheers


----------



## gordguide (Jan 13, 2001)

It's a public place. Act as you would anywhere else where everyone is welcome.

There's a reluctance to censor on ehMac, but if someone complains then I would expect the moderators to look into it and do what they see fit.

In the case you're mentioning (I didn't view either post) my guess is someone complained and the moderators went to that thread. They don't have the time or inclination to check every post to see if perhaps the same photo went by without complaints elsewhere.

Relax. I don't think you were singled out intentionally (by the mayor). He just probably responded to a PM, and since someone was offended, he did something to alleviate that.

If you think an image might offend someone, then just post a link and a polite warning instead of using UBB Image Code. And if you think it's risque, it probably is.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Relax. I don't think you were singled out intentionally (by the mayor). He just probably responded to a PM, and since someone was offended, he did something to alleviate that.


I am relaxed gordguide, and I certainly don't feel singled out.

I just want to know why things are the way they are. One thing is unacceptable and another is OK, when both can be considered offensive by some, that's all. I know the language I posted examples of offends me. 

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Sinc,

I guess we have to face reality here. Our culture is getting more rude with each passing day and we're seeing the fruits of it here. 

Look at the foul mouths on some of our politicians. Profanity laden shows like "Trailor Park Boys" are a big hit with teens and preteens. Garbage shows like Springer and Stern have a huge following. Jackass is the standard for what passes as comedy these days with their grotesque and disgusting antics. The porn industry is making more money than Microsoft. 20-30 years ago this would have been rejected by the masses. Not today. 

Like it or not, the comments you pointed to are a reflection of the new F-you culture and becoming more widespread every day. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

SINC

Thanks for raising this. Some of the attitude and language posted recently is unnecessarily aggressive.

People who are unable to discuss with manners, or win others over by force of argument are resorting to insult and aggression.

MacGuiver has a point about common standards today - but we don't have to accept them everywhere.

It would be great to her from the Mayor & Co.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Tread very carefully indeed. This is sounding an awful lot like censorship. I abhor censorship. 

If you find some language offensive, ignore it, don't fuel it. There are those that intentionally post without using foul language in order to make a point. There are those that don't. 

There are those that are rude and antagonistic. That's what makes places interesting. The different personalities. 
We shouldn't tell people what to write, how to write it and so on. 

Nudity links. Well, common courtesy would indicate that if you can avoid embedding an image that could possibly offend, then do so, although that too smacks of censorship. 

I had this discussion on one of my art forums not too long ago. 

IMO, we all seem to get along just fine. Occasionally we have a bit of a hiccup, we deal with it, and move on. 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Bo,

You may be more supportive of censorship than you think.

Case in point:
Would you support hardcore porn movies playing on PBS right after Barney? If so would you let your children watch?
Would you support your child's school teacher holding a massive collection of child porn?
Would you support snuff movies being played to inmates in Kingston Pen?
Would you support a school teacher that regularly used profane language teaching children?

If you answered no to any of these questions, you've just censored someone. I think Censorship has its place in society but its a fine line as to what should and shouldn't be deemed acceptable.
All the things I've stated above would be permissible with the absence of censorship.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

I refer to my suggestion for a more 'adult' section, not for nasty and crude posting, but for more, oh shall we say 'colourful' posting.

If you want to start threads with charged subject matter such as politics or religion then it's pretty ridiculous to expect people to be all proper and PC correct in their tone and language, people get worked up and that is a good thing.

Perhaps if the tone and flavor of certain threads and the language that is used, as it reflects the real world, is not to your liking then maybe you would be happier on a 'family values' forum.  

Of course if you don't like the things that I post or the way in which I express my thoughts and opinions then kick me off. If you don't want to do that then shut up and deal with the spice and a little raunchiness baby.









Blandness = Pasty pale people.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

> Case in point:Would you support hardcore porn movies playing on PBS right after Barney? If so would you let your children watch?
> Would you support your child's school teacher holding a massive collection of child porn?
> Would you support snuff movies being played to inmates in Kingston Pen?
> Would you support a school teacher that regularly used profane language teaching children?


This has nothing to do with censorship, get a grip. If you think these examples fall under censorship topics you're in pretty bad shape sport.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> Would you support hardcore porn movies playing on PBS right after Barney? If so would you let your children watch?
> Would you support your child's school teacher holding a massive collection of child porn?
> Would you support snuff movies being played to inmates in Kingston Pen?
> Would you support a school teacher that regularly used profane language teaching children?


My answer to all of those is yes. I support their right to exist. That doesn't mean I LIKE it, but I have to support it's right to exist. 

Why does profanity have to be so morally wrong? Curse words are just words, just like any other word. They have no power. 

Whether or not I despise the content of certain things, I DO believe in it's right to exist. How I choose to manage it's existence in my own personal life, is how I choose to manage it. 

Censorship by a censoring body, IMO is wrong. Who gets to choose what I think is right or wrong? 



> Blandness = Pasty pale people


I have to agree with Gretchen on this one. Who really likes pasty pale people? ewwww. 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

I like the dynamic created by the variety of expression. All ribald gets dull. All polite gets dull. The two make an interesting match.

Besides, the posts that I have found most offensive in this forum employed no colourful language, no evidence of genitalia (if you know what I mean) and only standard graemlins.

When it comes to crossing the line, I'm sure we're all guilty of our own trespasses.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> When it comes to crossing the line, I'm sure we're all guilty of our own trespasses.


Exactly, but my question is where is the line?

Cheers


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

Everyone has their own line.

As soon as you define it, those who wish to, will cross it.

my 2 cents.


----------



## MacDoxie (Mar 28, 2003)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As much as a admire your moxie, do you think we could remember this is a family show?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You need to stop posting so many doxie pictures from a dubious breeder!!!!! Dr.G., you know to whom I refer. Your doxies do not have the proper British "moxie".


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Coming from you, MacD, I take that as a joke. You haven't a clue why Sinc posts the pictures of my doxies. So, show a bit of respect, SVP.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> The Columbia Encyclopedia, Sixth Edition.  2001.
> 
> CENSORSHIP
> official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order. It may be imposed by governmental authority, local or national, by a religious body, or occasionally by a powerful private group. It may be applied to the mails, speech, the press, the theater, dance, art, literature, photography, the cinema, radio, television, or computer networks. Censorship may be either preventive or punitive, according to whether it is exercised before or after the expression has been made public.


Gee Gretchin it sure would seem like censorship to me if someone got canned from their teaching job for constantly cussing in front of the students. The teacher could easily cry censorship if the school board prohibited his expression (cursing) for the good of the children? Seems to fit that definition pretty nicely Whats the definition of censorship in your world?  .



> Why does profanity have to be so morally wrong? Curse words are just words, just like any other word. They have no power.


Really? The fact this thread was started is proof contrary to that. The fact Carolyn Parrish is sending resumes to the Howard Stern Show is also proof of the power of profanity.

As for supporting the existance of child porn, If my child's teacher got off looking at pictures of naked children you can bet your life I'd applaud the school board that fired him and the police that confiscated his kiddie porn collection. I would not favor some perverts right to get off on his kiddie porn collection over the the safety of my children, he may never touch them but that's a chance I wouldn't be willing to take. Thankfully police and school authorities wouldn't either. Now if they could just catch the sick #$%@ that made it in the first place  

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

Sinc - Moscool's original post of the picture, contained a link to the picture instead of a posting of it.

From Moscool's post


> indirect link to preserve the health of sensitive ehMaclanders


I felt it best to leave the nuditiy available through a link rather then straight display, after all I haven't seen an edited post where it was put in a link instead of just displayed, outside of the one you posted and I edited.

It would be preferred that the offensive language wasn't on the board at all. It's not needed, there are after all more words in the English langauge then those ones.

Outright language is usually removed, and I believe we have been rather lax in regards to the partially censored language. If anything, we can start by asking people to refrain from swearing on the board, but I don't know of any plans to do any actual censoring of the language yet. However, I will be removing WTF from subject headings from now on. There really is no need for any swearing to be in the thread title.

Any censorship, or "moderating" on this board is minimal. The standard is to only edit a post first, and the delete only if necessary. (Double posts not included - those just get the boot).

For what it is worth, no one has complained about the post. I decided to take the initiative and just link the picture, and just make a picture like that available only if people wish to click on it.

It's a funny picture, but I do know that there are some people who would much rather prefer to avoid seeing the picture.



> People who are unable to discuss with manners, or win others over by force of argument are resorting to insult and aggression.


Pelao - I have noticed this, and have posted a few times regarding the behaviour, but have not taken any steps to curb the action. I prefer to talk to the person first and then if need be, take action.



> There are those that are rude and antagonistic. That's what makes places interesting. The different personalities.
> We shouldn't tell people what to write, how to write it and so on.


I know that no one here wants censorship of anyone's style or ideas. However, there is a difference between blatant insults and ideas. I refer to the macello debacle a while ago. Even if you completely disagree with the person, you should owe the person enough respect to not be a complete jackass. Am I correct?



> If you want to start threads with charged subject matter such as politics or religion then it's pretty ridiculous to expect people to be all proper and PC correct in their tone and language, people get worked up and that is a good thing.


Gretchen - Even if you are worked up, doesn't the community deserve a little respect and decorum? It is possible to coherently give a strong point of view without swearing or ridiculing others.

Please note, I'm not saying that you should get lost because people can't take insults. I'm simply stating that if you can't communicate your ideas without everyone just seeing swearing or insults, then what is the point of your post?

Lastly, Sinc asks the question "Where is the line?"

The line is largely determined by the community, but each person has a slightly different line. ehMac's line is relatively outlined in the terms you agreed to on registering with the site.



> You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use ehMac to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative any law.


Granted, we don't follow it to the letter, but if you are part of the community, doesn't the community deserve a little respect when it comes to posting?


----------



## vacuvox (Sep 5, 2003)

> knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate


hmmm.


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

> Gee Gretchin it sure would seem like censorship to me if someone got canned from their teaching job for constantly cussing in front of the students. The teacher could easily cry censorship if the school board prohibited his expression (cursing) for the good of the children?


Actually I would disagree, I would think it's common sense, respect, edicate and decorum to not swear in front of other's kids. After all your in front of a bunch of kids who are not yours and you are responsible to act accordingly. Ie. your not out in public where the kids or their parents can decide not to listen. Then again, maybe it is censorship, but my guess is that that would be part of the contract you signed when you joined the school or be part of a teacher's association oath.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Kosh



> but my guess is that that would be part of the contract you signed when you joined the school or be part of a teacher's association oath.


I agree it does seem like common sense. But wouldn't a contract demanding you hold your tongue not fit the very definition of censorship? 

"official prohibition or restriction of any type of expression believed to threaten the political, social, or moral order."

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

entering a contract and participating in the "public realm" are two different things.

...and there are very few 'public realms" around anymore. The internet is now considered to be one of the most free public realms...but not for long I assume.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Chealion

Thanks for your response. I respect you approach to these challenging issues.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*Even if you are worked up, doesn't the community deserve a little respect and decorum? It is possible to coherently give a strong point of view without swearing or ridiculing others. [...] I'm simply stating that if you can't communicate your ideas without everyone just seeing swearing or insults, then what is the point of your post?*

'xactly.

*entering a contract and participating in the "public realm" are two different things.*

If you were out in public (say a restaurant or cafe) having a discussion with friends and one of them said something you didn't agree with, would you _loudly_ exclaim about your friends parents marital state at the time of their conception, or insinuate that they might be keen on matriarchal copulation? 

Whether you think so or not, it is rude and inconsiderate of those around you. The people at the next table over, for example, may not appreciate having to hear your loud opining about your friends faecal capacity, whether you are right or not.

Of course, this isn't so much the public realm, is it? It's ehMax's site. He sets the rules, and you agreed to them. The abstract of the rules, basically, is don't be an insulting jackass. If you doubt ehMax's patience with the people here, well, you've not been here very long.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I'll try to reply more later when I get a chance. Until then... what Chealion said.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

a restaurant and a cafe are private establishments. that isn't the public realm. the sidewalk is almost the only public realim and barely at that.

*Of course, this isn't so much the public realm, is it? It'z ehmax's site* 

no it isn't because you enter a contract when you become a member.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Blandness = Pasty pale people.*


Maybe true, but exercising decorum certainly doesn't mean someone is bland. You can have a very lively discussion without being obnoxious, insolent or vulgar. "Attitude" scores no extra points in a debate, as far as I'm concerned. It may make the poster feel better, but it could well backfire on their ability to being taken seriously.


----------



## Gretchen (Aug 16, 2004)

> Now if they could just catch the sick #$%@ that made it in the first place


See, you can get worked up about something...









Well I was told that if one is going to 'pepper' their posts and replies with 'swears'(Ralphie), then used astriks and such, in other words don't use the actual word. That is what I've done.  I am also not cursing at other members in personal attacks or anything(unless provoked). The agreement says, _be nice._ I'm being nice, as long as others are nice as well.  

I make comments on news items and things that I personaly find amusing and someone decides that I'm damaged or somehow unfit to be among the population? I didn't post the link to the item and point it at one of the members here and taunt them with it, it was for anyone to read and make of it what they will.







Gawd you people need to give your heads a shake, last time I checked this was still Canada and not the friggin' USS er USA!  

Again this is the 'everything else' section. It's obvious that there are people here that have a problem with the more 'raunchy' kinds of threads, so if there was a section that would allow that then they could just avoid it.  Everyone could be happy and we could all meet in the 'nice' areas and talk about bunnies and things.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*a restaurant and a cafe are private establishments. that isn't the public realm.*

It's as much the public realm as ehMac is. People come here and meet for common purpose. People come here because they like what's on the menu. People come from all over the place. People are allowed in with little restriction. People are expected to show respect for the other patrons.

And even if you are just talking about being on a sidewalk or in a park or whatever, that's doesn't mean you have free license to shout obscenity or call others names. Or rather, it does, except considerate people do not, because it's rude.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

Um. Posterboy, I get the impression that you think you're arguing with me. To keep you from looking like an idiot, I'll stop you now and say that I am not arguing with you. I am agreeing. I'll try and make it more clear for you. When people are in the "public realm" they don't necessarily have to oblige with moral "rules" (but of course they usually look like idiots or self absorbed morons if they don't), but when they are in private venues such as restaurants and member based websites they are expected to act according to that venues requirements and or "contractual arrangements" (ie. the "rules" set by ehmac when you sign up)


----------



## LGBaker (Apr 15, 2002)

Chealion declared


> I refer to the macello debacle a while ago.


Ah, yes. The Macello Wars. (image of macello doing a one-man tango within a circle of dispassionate onlookers ... something wrong with this picture) That should be the macello + x + y + z debacle.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> Really? The fact this thread was started is proof contrary to that. The fact Carolyn Parrish is sending resumes to the Howard Stern Show is also proof of the power of profanity.


The words themselves have no power. It is the way people react to those words that has the power. 



> As for supporting the existance of child porn, If my child's teacher got off looking at pictures of naked children you can bet your life I'd applaud the school board that fired him and the police that confiscated his kiddie porn collection.


And round and round it goes. I personally do NOT agree with the purchase and sale and the making of and and and of kiddie porn. But who is made the Harbinger of morality? Again. Whether I like or dislike or even abhor the content, I have to believe in its right to exist. What about books about child porn? is that better or worse? It is too hard to draw the line, and it just starts to infringe on our charter of rights

Quote:
 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms: 

a) freedom of conscience and religion; 
b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; 

Just because I don't believe that child porn is right, nor does the vast majority of civilization, it has a right to exist. 
That's all. 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I get the impression that you think you're arguing with me.*

No, Pamela, I was clarifying my point. A point you just repeated.

Why do you feel the need to resort to insults?


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

Go back and read line of posts. Each time you posted, it was after my post with a quote from my post. You didn't say "yes, I agree....blah blah blah. You were clearly writing in a retortful manner.

You get on my nerves when you're on your high horse. I let it go once, but twice in the same thread. No way.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

<del>And you on mine, but I do my best to refrain from actually insulting you, or anyone else who gets on my nerves.</del>

In light of your edit:

I didn't say "yes, I agree" because I didn't entirely agree. Then it appeared you misinterpreted my point, so I clarified it. If that is "retortful," perhaps it is because you are for some reason on the defensive.

You get on my nerves when you're on your high horse, too, the difference is that I do my best to refrain from actually insulting you (or anyone else who I butt heads with).

[ November 25, 2004, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: PosterBoy ]


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

Well I don't refrain. Deal with it.

There are only two people on this forum that get on my nerves, and I have no problem saying so when needed.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Now if they could just catch the sick #$%@ that made it in the first place
> See, you can get worked up about something...


Hi didly ho ehmac neighbour! 
I must admit my boxers were in a bunch for sure and I just couldn't bring myself to write the "f" word. Oh what the gosh darn heck, SICK FARTS!!!!  

Cheers
Neddy
 










[ November 25, 2004, 09:15 PM: Message edited by: MacGuiver ]


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

"Sticks and Stones..." right, bopeep?


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> a restaurant and a cafe are private establishments. that isn't the public realm. the sidewalk is almost the only public realim and barely at that.


Odd that anyone would believe that!

Public is public. Just like a bar is public. Or a hockey arena is public. Or a Chinese restaurant across the street for a major downtown Vancouver hotel my wife and I stayed at a few years back.

Some very loud drunks came in and spoiled our evening by using the "F" word so many times a minute, we asked for our bill and left before the main course.

We did ask the waitress to ask the table concerned to tone it down please first, but she and later the manager declined because "they didn't want any trouble they couldn't handle."

Only in Vancouver you say?

Cheers


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> The words themselves have no power. It is the way people react to those words that has the power.


Sort of like saying the bullet has no power. Its the way your head reacts to the bullet that has the power?  
The word would have to have the power for without the word there is no reaction. Its the power of the word that creates the reaction.

I still stand by my 9th grade English teacher. The pen is mightier than the sword...unless your actually fighting a guy with a sword and all you have is a cheap plastic ball point pen.

Oh man this is getting deep.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Pamela,

If someone gets on your nerves, rather than insult them, why not go outside and take a deep breath, maybe even a walk? You'll feel better afterwards, I'm sure.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Still going to reply soon. I got back from work / meetings at 9:00, just in time for the Apprentice. Now I have to watch ER.









Its good to get these issues out in the open. Be nice to each other.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Sticks and stones? 
Sort of. 

I don't think when Gretchen uses her foul language and whacky emoticons that her intent is to demean or demoralize. She is just expressing herself in an online forum using words and emoticons to get a rise out of people. It's working. I recall a thread where some of you didn't beleive she was who she said she was, and some of you still don't believe she's a she. Who cares? 

Name calling is mean. 

I'm pretty sure Gretchen isn't here to solve the world's problems. I'll bet she's sitting at her machine right now laughing her ass off at us being all moral and serious, giving us all the 'double whammy'. 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Name calling is mean.


If you stand by that statement Bo, consider this:

Gretchen to Chealion:


> As for you, you little prick


followed by the "double whammy" emoticon as you call it. (I call it the finger.)

This from a member who agreed to observe posting rules when she joined, aimed at a moderator no less.

Nice. Real nice.

Cheers


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

Agreed, it wasn't the best way to deal with it. I think it was a bit of an overreaction, nothing more. 

I'm pretty sure Chealion has done his part in creating AND rectifying the misunderstanding. 

Are we done now? all in the family is about to start. I just love it when Archie.... 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Yep, we're done.

Archie was great when I first watched him 30 years ago and he still makes me laugh today.

Enjoy the show. I know I will!

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Okay...for what it's worth, here are my thoughts on this subject:

I've been around this place for awhile now. And I've often been at the very center of some pretty serious controversies on what's proper and what's totally over the line here at ehmac. Bot HOWDY, have I ever!

But...you know what?

I have NO problem, whatsoever, with how this forum is moderated. It's just about the fairest place I've ever been...or could ever hope to be. With people like Ehmax and Chealion guiding the mayem, we have the very best of all worlds, as far as I'm concerned. I can't think of two people who are more diplomatic or even-handed in their handling of all sorts of complex issues. On ANY forum on the net.

And I have said so, on many ocassions.

The fact that I am still here should show all the doubters out there how much rope can and will be given to anyone before they are reeled in and given a smack.









Politeness and decorum is paramount here. Controversy is NOT! It's a fine combination as far as I'm concerned.

I like that. Which is why this is still my favorite place to hang out...when I can spare the time.

What did I think of the photo which began this thread? And especially what did I think when it hits so close to home for my own reality?

GREAT!! And funny, as well!









(but I'm still left wondering if the masterful Vacuvox...or someone who is equal to his considerable talents...might not have been responsible for it?)

Meanwhile, it's certainly got a lot of you talking about it...has it not?

This is a good thing, in my mind. It promotes discussion and makes us all a bit closer as a community...in an odd sort of way. Despite the subject matter. A good lively debate is healthy. Controversy is a breath of fresh air. Silence and apathy is NOT!

Trust me on this


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

I don't think there's ever been a paucity of vigourous debate on ehMac, nor do I think that it's an issue here for the Mayor. It's the language. To be fair, I can have a mouth on me at times that would make a sailor blush, but it just doesn't seem fitting to do that here in this public forum that can be read by members of all ages. Maybe that makes me old fashioned, but I rather like having a mutually understood sense of decorum about keeping the language and topics clean. This is supposed to be a board about computers, after all.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

jfpoole. I forgot about you. That makes three.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And I'm probably numero uno on Pamela's list.

So be it.

Bottom line?

I don't swear without asterisks..and I never even do that without thinking long and hard about it beforehand.

This place has a certain politeness and decorum that is often lacking in other forums on the net. I DO NOT think it has any serious censorship issues.

If it did...then I would be the very first one to grab the ejection handles and bail out. Forever.

Just as I did with the Magic forum.


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

And Pamela....you know what?

I don't much care if you love me or hate me. Just so long as I make you think.

And cause you to take keyboard in hand and make a reply. ANY reply. Of any sort.  

Trust me on this.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

ahhh....macnutt...you'll always be number one to me  LOL!

But at least it's for good reason. You're odds are pretty good...look at all of your posts afterall! You're bound to say something that bugs me eventually! LOL

Trust me on this  


And for the record. I've never said anything about hate. In the past I have tended to throw that word around easily without thinking much about it, but I'm getting better. Because as far as I'm concerned, words do mean something. And "hate" is a strong word.

Irritate...annoy...bother....insult my intelligence...get on my nerves...those are words that are much more human and real  lol!


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Just so long as you are still in the game, Pamela...and keep on replying.  

We need YOU here, too! You are a fine feisty opponent. One that I just love to engage in battle.  

We need more females here. Especially ones like yourself, who have a real opinion. And who aren't afraid to step up and express that opinion. 

I really mean THAT, as well.

Trust me on this.


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

*jfpoole. I forgot about you. That makes three.*

Coming from you, that's a compliment. Thanks!


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

oooohhhh...the third one is witty too!!


----------



## jfpoole (Sep 26, 2002)

Pamela, are you planning on making sense anytime soon?


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

I don't want this to be a long heated debate about the obvious morality issues surrounding child porn, snuff etc etc. Suffice to say that I, and most rational human beings despise those things. 

My point is, where do we draw the morality line? Who is the one who gets to say THIS is what I can photgraph but not THAT. Who is the one to tell me what I can and can't read? Write? draw? Whether or not material should exist from a MORAL perspective doesn't change the fact that it has a right to exist from a ' freedom of expression' perspective. 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

I am a fan of the way this forum is moderated. Because of the way it is moderated, most ehmaclanders freely post their opinions very eloquently. The tolerance people have for one another is admirable given the diversity that we all share. 

My hate is off to , no only the mods, but the members too. 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I think I understand where you're coming from BoPeep. I wouldn't want a cute picture I took of my baby taking a bubble bath in the tub to be construed as child pornography at the photo-lab. But child pornography, in the true definition of pornography, has absolutely no right to exist whatsoever. 



> Definitions of pornography:
> 
> creative activity (writing or pictures or films etc.) of no literary or artistic value other than to stimulate sexual desire


----

[ November 26, 2004, 10:53 AM: Message edited by: ehMax ]


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> *Whether or not material should exist from a MORAL perspective doesn't change the fact that it has a right to exist from a ' freedom of expression' perspective*


I don't think that's quite correct. You may have the right to THINK what you want, but you don't have the right to EXPRESS things that are hateful, slanderous, or downright outlawed. Examples would be ant-semitism, child pornography, death threat, etc.


----------



## Chealion (Jan 16, 2001)

> My hate is off to , no only the mods, but the members too.


bopeep - I'm thinking that you have an extra e on the end of hat, correct? Typos are the bane of our existance!


----------



## Kosh (May 27, 2002)

> And round and round it goes. I personally do NOT agree with the purchase and sale and the making of and and and of kiddie porn. But who is made the Harbinger of morality? Again. Whether I like or dislike or even abhor the content, I have to believe in its right to exist. What about books about child porn? is that better or worse? It is too hard to draw the line, and it just starts to infringe on our charter of rights
> 
> Quote:
> 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
> ...


Nice quote of the charter, but I think you cut it a little short. The Charter of Rights also says:



> The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to
> 
> (a) any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province of present or previous residence; and
> (b) any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services.


The "Harbinger of morality" is inevitably the society you are in. For example, if your in Canada, child porn is illegal. Other places it may be legal because they tolerate that. In Canada, possessing small amounts of marijuana is legal, in the US it's not. In the province of Ontario, it's legal for a woman to walk topless in public if it's not for sexual reasons (apparently if it got too hot here that would be a valid reaason), in Saskatchewan it's not.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

Hi Bo,


> My point is, where do we draw the morality line? Who is the one who gets to say THIS is what I can photograph but not THAT. Who is the one to tell me what I can and can't read? Write? draw? Whether or not material should exist from a MORAL perspective doesn't change the fact that it has a right to exist from a ' freedom of expression' perspective.


I guess you could extend that to say the following:
Who can tell you not to drive 100km/hr through a school zone?
Who can tell a pedophile he can't have sex with a consenting child?
Who can tell you not to dump my garbage in the lake?
Etc. Etc. Etc.

I'd agree with your argument if words and images had no consequences but I don't agree. Words and images are what steer society. Without rational people making rules and restrictions a society would implode. Does kiddy porn have negative consequences on our children? You bet. Its the fuel on the fire for these predators. 

Granted, censorship is by no means perfect or always appropriate and necessary... but its not a black and white issue either.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*Just because I don't believe that child porn is right, nor does the vast majority of civilization, it has a right to exist. * 

I had to read and re-read that about five times. Did you really mean to say that? Child porn has the right to exist? Please tell me that's not what you meant.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Interesting how this thread almost became an example of the topic question. 







Frankly, a bit of the logic on the interpretation of "freedom of speech", "censorship" and open behaviour in "public domain" baffled me. Good material for a separate thread.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Ok... some miscellaneous ramblings about what's proper and what's not on ehMac. 

First of all, I don't want anyone to think of this as "The Mayor's Site." In one sense that's correct, but I'd rather think of it as *OUR* site. I want us to have a collective ego about ehMac. It's OUR place and we don't want anyone to screw it up.  

Second, I don't want ehMac to have a whole bunch of specific rules. Chealion highlighted the main "official" rules that everyone agreed to when they joined ehMac:



> You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use ehMac to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyright is owned by you or by ehMac. Software sold in the "Trading Post" must comply with the software's license agreement. Questionable posts will be removed.


Now, 100% for sure there have been instances where the rules haven't been enforced. That's going to happen a lot and posts will slip through. We simply can't review every post. If there is a post that someone finds objectionable, they can alert the mods. 

I liken it to being on a highway with posted speed limits. The cops are not going to bust everyone who goes 101km on a 100km maximum zone. Hopefully most people will obey and no-one will go over 120. 

Occasionally, we'll check people and issues warning or give tickets to people who excessively speed. We may even temporarily take your license away. Some people will get into trouble for drinking and driving. (I could say a *hic* joke here, but I won't)  

If there's someone really weaving and speeding, someone might call the cops. 

You get the idea / analogy. (Not perfect, but hey)

Anyways... I think things are starting to get a little too vulgar / over the top lately so I ask that people take it easy on the language and tone. 

Regarding censorship... let me explain and be clear. This is a moderated site and there are rules and guidelines. There are forums out there that aren't moderated if so inclined. 

My aim is not to censor ideas, opinions and thoughts. My goal is to moderate to have a level of decorum and civility. I want ehMac to be an overall, positive place. (I feel like I've made this speech before) 

This site will be moderated in the context of the guidelines as outlined in the quote above. 

As to to the editing of the picture from Sync... I never did see it so I can't really comment. I do trust Chealions judgment and if anyone insults him again for trying to do his job...  

In closing...  please be nice. 

The daily grind is hard enough for us all. ehMac should be a bit of a release with lots of Mac love and peace.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_ Without rational people making rules and restrictions a society would implode_"

That's an awfully large statement and begs the question of "rational" and that there is only ONE set of rules and restrictions that work. It sounds like a Lord of the Flies tenent.

Several successful societies have been built on very different ideas of children and family - in one the children are children of the village and "belong" to no one family.
Hunter gather societies functioned for millenia in several areas of the planet with little negative impact on the ecology and in a sustainable relationship with their food sources.

Much social cooperation is a result of a million years of being a social animal and as a social/tribal animal we do look to leaders, for good or ill. 
There will always be deviants from the norm - some are celebrated as savants and geniuses others as wastrels still others as a danger to the common weal - psychopaths, predatory pedophiles, sociopaths in positions of responsibility over young minds to name 3.
There are many "dangers" and potentially deviant behaviours that can be destructive both physically and mentally.

As MM points out in LA regarding the smog there, who is being charged for the thousands of deaths caused by pollution ( 300,000 children in Europe last year )

The societal odds of a child damaged by a pedophile are vanishingly small compared to other "dangers" such as pollution for one.
Pedophila is a hot button so it gets attention. To a pedophile a Sears catalogue is erotic. 

Prevention of deviant behaviour of any sort, including raping the environment for gain, without trampling personal privacy and freedoms is an ongoing dialogue between society, individuals and law as a body of cross generational communication of knowledge.

I think tho it's a topic for another thread.


----------



## thewitt (Jan 27, 2003)

> I guess you could extend that to say the following:
> Who can tell you not to drive 100km/hr through a school zone?
> Who can tell a pedophile he can't have sex with a consenting child?
> Who can tell you not to dump my garbage in the lake?
> Etc. Etc. Etc.


Exactly. EVERYONE has the right to think where their own 'too much/ too bad/ wrong' ''line' is. And they have a right to let people know as well. I don't mean force their ideas on others, but this expression is in the form of voting for/againts laws and/or politicians who share your ideals.

I'm pretty sure this has been going on for a long time. I'll but that a cave man group at some point all decided that the guy that like to hit them with sticks was not in keeping with their thinking and kicked him out of the cave.

Everyone HAS to right to draw the line where they wish/want/think it should be. Granted, this can get out of hand and people in power can be corrupt... But that's another topic.



> I'd agree with your argument if words and images had no consequences but I don't agree. Words and images are what steer society. Without rational people making rules and restrictions a society would implode.


I'll only half agree with you there. Words and images are part of the way we represent ourselves as a society. Yes, we are responsible, as a whole, for what others do. Yes, without rules we would most certainly see a decline in decency, but I don't think society would "implode", it would certainly be a more dangerous place though.



> Does kiddy porn have negative consequences on our children? You bet. Its the fuel on the fire for these predators.


Kiddy porn = BAD. But the negative consequences it has on our children is how they are abused or manipulated into its production. The way an adult would abuse their position of trust or authority over a child to coheres them into posing or doing things they don't want to or don't know better than to do. The product itself isn't the fuel for the fire, the cycle of abuse IS. Most of these predators have been victims themselves as children, then go on to abuse as adults. Really quite sad.



> The societal odds of a child damaged by a pedophile are vanishingly small compared to other "dangers" such as pollution for one.


This could (as could any issue) easily turn to a 'what are the odds and what is worse' discussion. The fast that the odds are greater someone will be hit by a care does NOT lessen the fact that smaller odd issues should be addressed. The real danger of pedophilia (as I pointed out above) is the fact that it is a reciprocal cycle. Children who are abuse will likely abuse. So if we can stop people for harming children (and hopefully help these people who have been victims themselves) we can greatly reduce the likelihood of it happening in the future.

Great observations otherwise MacDoc.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Agreed - it's just when resources are finite, triage must be made and not getting vocal or activist about high likelihood threats while focusing on low risk ones occurs too often.

I agree breaking the cycle of abuse is critical and one method is early identification and intervention which then obviates teh need for early childhood education so there is both observation by teachers and exposure to norms for the child.

It's also not just sexual abuse but abuse period that is cyclic. One interesting and disturbing finding was a combination of abuse PLUS a genetic predisposition in certain populations ( family groups ) was the trigger for criminal behaviour.
it needed both to manifest the behaviour.

Society is fundamentally founded on trust and I would rather have an open trusting society and children comfortable in that than some of the paranoia that calls itself street proofing.  
The latter is a recipe for racism and alienation.

Trust WITH caution is possible but bottom line if your child is a target for one pedophile there is little you can do and to take away the joy of interaction with the 100,000 others who mean no harm is in my mind unwise both on an indivfidual level and societal level.

"It takes a village" is no small statement. To make it happen means trusting the village - however large it may be.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

If the majority think showing pornographic, terrifying or extremely violent movies or images to children can have harmful mental, physical or emotional effects on children, laws are drafted to restrict that content to adults only. 

That vote results in censorship. That is my point.

In a world with truly no censorship, as many here seem to be advocating, society would have absolutely no right to restrict anything. 

Is this what opponents of censorship would like to see? 

If my son wants to buy a manual for making pipe bombs, I won't let that happen. That would be censorship. Would I be wrong for doing that?

Its not a black and white issue as some see it but falls somewhere in between. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

____________________________________________________________
In a world with truly no censorship, as many here seem to be advocating, society would have absolutely no right to restrict anything. 
____________________________________________________________

I totally agree - I think child porn should be censored. Try imagining that it is your child who has suffered from some sicko's perversion and then published that perversion - do you think that it has a right to exist? NO

I do NOT condone censorship, but as stated as few times, it is not a black and white issue. 
Is protecting our morals, rights and children censorship? 
These are not just someone's "ideas or thoughts or belief's, they are tangibles.
Allowing them, because of a lack of censorship, violates our rights. 
We all have the right to our ideas and beliefs and morals, just as we have the right to express them. But some things just do not have the right to exist, ie child pornography, things that are harmful to people or against our wills. 
If a consenting adult wants to engage in pornographic fims and pictures and other adults want to watch them then so be it. Their choice. But a child DOES NOT engage in pornographic acts with consent. They are either forced or deceived into thinking it is normal or all right. They suffer for it, just as a woman suffers from rape - it is against their will. Their "rights" have been as violated as they have been physically.


----------



## Urban_Legend (May 29, 2003)

Wow, look at this thread, all because of some nudity?

Do you all wear censored clothing when taking a shower or bath in front your children? Are you all fully clothed in summer from head to toe? Nobody here ever goes swimming?

The most disturbing thing to me about this all, is how censored we Canadians are over general nudity in either media or in the public.

The Europeans have it right when they allow general nudity in TV commercials or magazines that advertise a certain product. Or have full blown pictures in newspapers of their version of the Sunshine Girl. They at least understand that human nudity is not taboo and that they don't need to raise their children believing that human nudity is taboo or worst should be censored from their lives.

Now pornography is another story and totally different issue by itself. 

I laugh every time I watch a movie on TV after it was brought out of the movie theatre, and see how they cut out all or most of the nudity scenes. It's bad enough that sex in general is taboo to most of our society in this country. Now we can't even show a genital of a human in a picture that was a joke on a website. Oh it is far too taboo for us Canadians here in Canada.

I think we need to take a more relaxed approach to nudity in general and take action against the pornography issues that bother others. 

This past summer while in the Beaches area of Toronto, I saw quite a few topless females of all ages walking the beach paths. I have to say, not a single person amongst thousands made a single comment or even bugged them for doing that. I believe that we are ready as Canadians to be more relaxed, but just not ready to acknowledge it openly to the masses. Or I could be wrong and as a society prefer the taboo method.


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

> Wow, look at this thread, all because of some nudity?


Actually it started the ball rolling but it was a remark about how wrong all censorship is that got us here. I asserted that it has a useful purpose in society but also I agree it can be a problem. Its not all or nothing to me.

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

I started the thread to raise an issue I felt needed to be discussed. 

So far it has paid off. I now have a much better understanding of why some members post the way they do. 

But, I still do not buy the theory that we have turned into an F-word society.

I have to believe there are still decent family people in this country. Matter of fact, I rarely hear the F-word in 99% of the places I go.

Cheers


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

Rights do not exist, in themselves. So much talk of rights, but few citizens in north america, and I imagine next to no one on this site, can make an axiomatic argument for them. This is because they are conventional, and guaranteed by the political institutions which are embodiments of the philisophical age. That said, they must at times be limited because they come into conflist with higher goods.

Case in point: Telling a fellow ehmacer to "F*ck off" is a break down of community. This expression is, to some, a "right". Yet, to break down the community is to destroy the institution that introduces, defines, and enforces those "rights". So, exercising some "rights", you will notice, destroys their "right" to exist. And, thus, they are not self-evident, nor intrinsic to human life. Sure, they are often a good idea, and give self-expression for the purposes of human teleology, but certainly not "good" in all cases, and at all times. 

So can it, uber-liberals. Liberalism doesn't stand without fixed, objective thought.


----------



## Cameo (Aug 3, 2004)

I have nothing against nudity or sex - so long as it is consenting. I don't feel we should be ashamed of our bodies - it is the most natural thing after all.
I didn't have a problem with the picture that was posted except for the fact that I felt sorry for the fellow and if it was me I wouldn't want my humiliation publicized. If the fellow himself consented to the photo - all well and good, no problem.
Nude photography can be tasteful and it can be degrading - depends on the composition. This is, though, only my opinion. Others are different and that is okay too.
Child pornography is not okay.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

*The most disturbing thing to me about this all, is how censored we Canadians are over general nudity in either media or in the public.* 

Interesting post UL. I've often though too about how "being naked" is such a taboo, but how violence in TV shows, video games is often accepted. 

There's a really good documentary that's on TVO and HBO quite often called Naked States. There's a QT movie trailer at the bottom of that page. 



> Human Edge
> Naked States -- CANADIAN PREMIERE
> Wednesday, November 8, at 10:00 p.m. EST, repeated Sunday, November 12, at midnight
> 80 minutes
> ...


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

"_I have to believe there are still decent family people in this country_

Sinc that "view" is part of the problem - its normal conversation for most urban dwellers - so lumping them into "indecent" by inference just gets hackles up.
In most settings other than formal ones it would hardly raise an eyebrow - it only has the "impact" YOU give to it. It's an old english word.

Sinc for all YOUR discomfort, others feel annoyed by the "tight assed", sniff sniff, readers digest language you are comfortable with.

It constrains full expression and indeed normal language use for a very large number.

Once in while it's nice to get you mad just to make sure you're emotions can still get riled  

•••

Ted I'd agree with you first paragraph but I the second not. I'd say it's a break down in the established decorum level by a member not a breakdown in the community.

Communities like this CAN act to keep a certain type of dialogue going - humour goes a long way and really much depends on context. Dr. G CAN be devastating by using high level language skills in a cutting manner that is far more pejorative than any swearing might be - but he refrains most often and there's the key.

Gretch and others and myself often stir the pot a bit to see what bits float up. A bit of controversy makes it fun.
Get the juices flowing.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

I finally waded into the Mac mugshots thread and saw the post that started this all. 

Oh, I'm laughing so hard I'm going to pee my pants.














 For thos who missed it, its here. (Male nudity)

I think for something like that, Chealion handled it good. Just put a link with a little disclaimer.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Sinc that "view" is part of the problem - its normal conversation for most urban dwellers - so lumping them into "indecent" by inference just gets hackles up.
> In most settings other than formal ones it would hardly raise an eyebrow - it only has the "impact" YOU give to it. It's an old english word.
> 
> Sinc for all YOUR discomfort, others feel annoyed by the "tight assed", sniff sniff, readers digest language you are comfortable with.
> ...


You know MacDoc, I am so sick and tired of your "know it all" and condescending attitude that I very nearly unleashed a barrage of language that would curl the screen you are reading.

So what you seem to be telling me is this:

When I go to the 7-Eleven in my neighbourhood for a lottery ticket, while standing in line I should be okey dokey with 12 and 13 year olds using the "F word" and much worse standing in line behind me, and believe me the F word is tame to what they actually use. To top it off they think it is funny.

It therefore should be quite all right for me to have to listen to the same age group, only female using the very same filth when my wife and I are standing in line to await admission to the Sting/Annie Lennox concert at the Rexall Centre.

If that indeed is "full expression and indeed normal language use for a very large number", then I respectfully submit that there are a very large number of sick people out there.

Cheers


----------



## tedj (Sep 9, 2004)

Despite the common consensus, there is good reason to keep nudity under wraps. Is it pleasurable? yes. Is it humorous at times? yes. Does it dull the senses, and thus lose its potency (i.e. once described as "eros") to drive one person from ignorance to understanding, from the base to the good? Absolutely, YES. Read Plato, Rousseau, etc. We once understood that nudity was VERY powerful, that sex was desirable, and thus a tool, not for pleasure, but for virtue and philosophical understanding and artistic creation. Read Dante-- all for the love of a dead girl he met once as a child..... These ideas are carried up into Christianity, and we emancipate ourselves from these ideas because we think we are too clever to fall for the mythical.....


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

I have started to post and deleted them all. 

Nudity is overrated. I prefer to have some things left to the imagination. 

Sex is good and, required for procreation. Could you imagine something that was necessary for the survival of our species being bad? 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

> Farm girls can do more than milk cows


I should hope so, Bo. I married a farm girl.

Wife, friend, lover, mother, confidant, homemaker, and best of all the most decent person I know. (What I don't know is why she has hung out with me for 40 years!)

Yep, if you can get yourself a farm girl, go for it!

So, Bo. You married? I know some real nice single guys on ehMac! 

Cheers


----------



## MacNutt (Jan 16, 2002)

Personally I couldn't give two HOOTS if someone decides to post nudity here or anywhere..

If I think it's offensive...then I will change the channel. And, for what it's worth, I ALWAYS think that any kind of child nudity is NOT for me. Unless I was the originator of that particular rugrat. THEN I might think it's cute.

Otherwise...yuckola.

What's proper here?

Don't honestly know. But if you see something you DON'T like...then report it to the mods.

Or change the channel. And don't look at it.

Just my thoughts on this.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

For the comments that have stayed on topic (and I use the word "topic" loosely), I have found them fascinating.

I support Chealion's decision even though my personal view is that nudity should be more readily accepted than all the violence on prime time T.V. We're born naked and hopefully some of us will die naked.  

*Warning the following symbols are sassily meant to represent something else. Those offended by this sort of thing turn away now!*

<===3

Draw what conclusions you will.


----------



## PosterBoy (Jan 22, 2002)

*I've often though too about how "being naked" is such a taboo, but how violence in TV shows, video games is often accepted. *

Here is an interesting comparison for you. You've probably heard the Radiohead song "Paranoid Android", right? It's one of their biggest hits, so if you haven't, well, that must be a nice rock you're living under









Anyway. The music video for that song is animated, and it is rather screwed up. Basically, the animator just listened to the song and drew. Towards the end of the video, there is a scene where a character accidentally chops his arms and legs off and falls off of a bridge into a river, where he is rescued by a pair of topless mermaids. That's two fairly distinct images, one violent and the other nudity.

In Canada, the violence was censored but the nudity was not.
In America, the nudity was censored but the violence was not.

I always found that rather interesting.

Anyway, back to your regularly scheduled [insert your regular schedule here].


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

It's an observation Sinc - just cuz you live in readers digest land doesn't mean others do.

You call it sick, others call it everyday language. 
If you don't like being labelled a tight ass then stop calling others sick or indecent just because they use different language and react to it differently than you do.









••••••

Bopeep indeed the art of the erotic is teasing concealment. 
I can't stand what passes for most "porn" but a a suggestive photo or drawing can be very ahem ...inspiring.

It's encouraging to see more tasteful nudity on the screen these days but I also agree leaving things to the imagination can also work.

I was surprised at LAX to see the two costars in a pretty steamy bed scene. That would have caused a riot in Alabama not too many years back........maybe it did.


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> It constrains full expression and indeed normal language use for a very large number.


Whoa there boy!

Constrains full expression!
Have to disagree with you there. Sure, swearing can add emphasis, especially when used by someone who swears only rarely.

Most languages are full and rich and allow an almost limitless combination of words and phrases that can make for incredibly effective communication. Sometimes I feel that swearing is used to fill in for poor language skills. A broader knowledge of language allows full expression at no risk of causing offense. 

Of course, you recognize this:



> Dr. G CAN be devastating by using high level language skills in a cutting manner that is far more pejorative than any swearing might be - but he refrains most often and there's the key.


You are clearly enjoying pointing a little provocation towards SINC.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"Dr. G CAN be devastating by using high level language skills in a cutting manner that is far more pejorative than any swearing might be - but he refrains most often and there's the key."

Pelao, I take that as a compliment. Merci. I shall be henceforth known as the "pejoranator" in my linguistic circles here at the university.

Still, my views about child porn has always been the same -- NO!! Taking a picture of my son in the tub at the age of 1 or 2 is one thing, but exploitation is quite another issue. While I am for free speech, this form of "expression" should be outlawed. 

Re language, either written or spoken, this is a far more difficult issue. Spoken language is an expression of our culture, our values and our personal selves. In part, spoken language is who we are as humans. What we say may be used for good or ill. This is the greater impact of the written word, in that "Give me Liberty, or give me Death!" is still with us since Patrick Henry uttered these words aloud, mainly because someone wrote them down. 

However, the bottom line is what is intended by these spoken and written words, and what it in fact accomplishes. If books die, then so do we. What is good writing? That is a somewhat subjective interpretation. What is acceptable language? That too is left open for interpretation. I understand Sinc's position of being exposed to a certain form of language out in the public, and his reactions to this language. Still, we need to try and understand the intent of this language. These persons might use this form of language in public to draw attention to themselves in much the same way Macnutt baits Macdoc to post a picture of himself in the Mugshots thread. It is a childish baiting, but this is an expression of who Macnutt is as a person. The fact that it did not lead to overt acts of violence against Macdoc keeps these written words within the boundaries of acceptable uses of this form of expressive language.

Being a semanticist, I contend that the word is not the thing. Thus, you may ban my use of the word "doxie", but my word is not the actual dachshund to which I refer. You may ban all publications that deal with "safe sex" in our schools, but this does not prevent students from having sex. You may ban all books from even the mention of AIDS in our libraries, but people do not contract AIDS from reading about it in a book. Thus, the word is not the thing.

So, we all hold various views about what is acceptable and unacceptable uses of language, and we need to let these boundaries ebb and flow over the years. It's when we stop discussing issues, or ban expressions of free speech in public, that we start to deminish as a society.

For, as it is written in "The World According to Macnutt", "Language helps to unify us all as a group of people, just as it causes us to be apart from certain of these many people. Even those who speak different languages than our own have thoughts, ideas and feelings to share. It is the common bond of sharing that helps to make us a world society. We must avoid considering one way of expression as the best way of expression. For this leads to one language, and THE language connotates exactness and correctness. Let us be one in our desire to express our views, and unique in the expression of these views. We will all get along far more civily if we follow this one path of many roads. Trust me on this."


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Pelao - No.... really .....me







perish the thought.  

_Sometimes I feel that swearing is used to fill in for poor language skills. _

Exactly, many people simply do not have the subtle language skills or even intermediate language skills so do not discriminate very well in situational language.

That's my point tho, it's simply part of the everyday argot for many in society and they are indeed hampered in easy expression. It irks me when I hear "He did real good on that test" but that's MY irritation to deal with.
If people have to work too hard to stay "in form", the spontanaety gets occluded at times. While this is not as freewheeling and quick as a chat room some of the funniest and best dialogues are like that and Gretchen tends to be at the centre of many.

I'd rather more dialogue online even if uninhibited than less dialogue of a stilted or constrained nature. Let the words and thoughts flow.
I'd rather hear the person and personality through their actual language than it be filtered.
I'm certainly not against situational decorum but the community in my mind is more lively with a variety of "styles" depending on subject. Humour leavens all of course.

Bopeep is a passionate case in point as is Gretchen and often the heart of the matter gets derailed by a "language scandal " - the FlySqrl dialogues come to mind.

I rather hear people "in their own words and style" than a public radio announcer dialect imposed across the board. 
It's more revealing of the person and passion in their lives, their outlook etc.

Which is why off course we like to flip the kilts of a couple of scots to get the steam up. 

[ November 27, 2004, 10:20 AM: Message edited by: MacDoc ]


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

> Sometimes I feel that swearing is used to fill in for poor language skills.


...and pointing out that someone has used swear words allows the pointer to feel soooooooo superior!!

I'm reminded of the mother who distracts her young children from swearing by telling them to say "funny bunny" instead - it's still swearing isn't it? Did anybody miss the meaning when "fuddle duddle" was transcribed into Hansard instead of what Pierre actually said.

Sometimes when I say "oh ****" there is no other words that will suffice or carry the same meaning. If you have a better command of the English language, good for you, but I think you're just fooling yourself with your subtle substitutions and your body language - I know what you mean even if you don't.

You = if the shoe fits.

Margaret


----------



## MannyP Design (Jun 8, 2000)

I'd hate to say it, but I'm a firm believer that there is no other words in any language that properly holds the same power to convey the enormous amount of pain one feels when one bangs their toe on the table in the dark than a curse word.

All words have their place -- including foul ones. However, they are best used sparingly for very special occasions. 

[ November 27, 2004, 10:47 AM: Message edited by: « MannyP Design » ]


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> Sometimes when I say "oh ****" there is no other words that will suffice or carry the same meaning. If you have a better command of the English language, good for you, but I think you're just fooling yourself with your subtle substitutions and your body language - I know what you mean even if you don't.


Ha! So true! Those who mightily refrain from swearing their head off when the anvil accidentally drops on their toe are unwittingly emphasizing what they _really_ want to yell. This is not unlike the irony to be found in G-strings and pasties and the parts they're meant to conceal.

(;->))

I'm all for swearing if it's used sparingly - then it can be terribly effective. Otherwise, it becomes tiresome in a hurry. In most cases I appreciate it when people make an effort to summon up a colourful string of phrases which hint at the underlying emotion rather than blatantly blast it out.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

_In most cases I appreciate it when people make an effort to summon up a colourful string of phrases which hint at the underlying emotion rather than blatantly blast it out._

By the trenchant dung of the wild boar.... you're right sirra


----------



## kps (May 4, 2003)

For over twenty years I've worked in an industry where everyone uses the "F" word as sparingly as someone would use salt on an icy sidewalk. That would include drivers, dispatchers, managers and owners.

A typical conversation with your "travel agent" (dispatcher) may go something like this:

" What the f--- do you mean the f---ing highway is f---ing closed. Those f---ers need the f---ing freight and they're already on my f---ing a$$. Call me as soon as you f---ing get there....for f---s sake"

I'm f--ing immune to it now.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

I want to thank everyone for helping us deal with the question of "what is PROPER and what is ACCEPTABLE?" Interesting variation of opinions. I've thus far been an ongoing advocate of keeping decorum guidelines. "Questionable" language or terminology can so easily be misunderstood in its tone that it's open to misunderstanding and incorrect reaction. 
I can say "f***k off!" with the best of them, but would not use it in this forum. Why??...because you don't know if I have a smile on my face and just exclaiming, or have a look of anger and I'm lashing out. Maybe I'm just exercising "tongue-in-cheek" expression. Call me a “prick” and I’ll take it offensively. Tell me to get out of “Reader’s Digest land” and I’ll take that as condescending and insolent. Am I supposed to respond “in kind” and fuel the situation, or should I be above uncontrolled behaviour, take a breath and refuse to be drawn to the “street” level? Where and when would it stop? I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been wanting to reply with some juicy retorts, but where does that get me and how does it reflect on my true personality? This forum only sees a small part of who I am. A one-on-one private argument with a person is one thing, but public discussion is a totally different matter. 
I’ve read the dialogue that goes on in other forums and I personally don’t think we should let ehMac degrade to those levels…it’s what I like about this forum, people can (usually) respond with respect and decorum. Heated debates are great! But how long would they have participation if posters knew they could be open to insults or replies in unkind language? I believe that “politely expressive” retorts are more effective than ones that polarize the participants, unless you’re looking for a fight. Some people here like fights…I don’t, so who sets the guidelines?…… the outspoken?, the majority?, the moderators? Many members can be outspoken, very opinionated, sometimes annoying, and certainly controversial, but I usually have to admire the delivery and anger/language control. It allows the discussions to continue with active participation. It has worked so far, why change it.


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Peter, you again show yourself as a fair-minded liberal linguist with your comment "Many members can be outspoken, very opinionated, sometimes annoying, and certainly controversial, but I usually have to admire the delivery and anger/language control. It allows the discussions to continue with active participation. It has worked so far, why change it." Once again, I commend you on your clarity of thought and expression. Paix, mon frere.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Peter, your post is a shining example of how one can convey their message using totally acceptable language without foul words.

It reinforces my belief that those who resort to such language on this forum do so unnecessarily. Once in a while and discretely used, is acceptable for emphasis, but post after post is outside the line.

Cheers


----------



## winwintoo (Nov 9, 2004)

> For over twenty years I've worked in an industry where everyone uses the "F" word as sparingly as someone would use salt on an icy sidewalk. That would include drivers, dispatchers, managers and owners.
> 
> A typical conversation with your "travel agent" (dispatcher) may go something like this:
> 
> ...


Ah, grew up with and then married into a family of them - how I miss their *colourful* language









But what always got me was that those same people would then refuse to discuss anything with me because I had *raised my voice* HUH??

If I were to tell you about my nearly new top-of-the-line telephone that can't find the base station when it's sitting on it, I would be tempted to use some of the *f* words in my post - do you want to hear about it?

Since I don't know any of you, I would hesitate to use any such language in reference to you or your parentage. In fact those words are rarely in my vocabulary at all any more. No need since I gave up carrying around anvils and such like.

But that *bleeping* telephone got my dander up yesterday.....

Margaret


----------



## Moscool (Jun 8, 2003)

Given that I started the ball rolling, may I just remind everyone that I *did* post the kilt pic as a link. It is when Sinc did a direct post that the whole commotion started. My view was that bollocks (or other body parts) look better if there is a bit of an element of surprise


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Peter Scharman

I can only assume you had extra Cheerios this this morning....  

Thanks for clearly articulating some principles which I share.


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

> I'd rather more dialogue online even if uninhibited than less dialogue of a stilted or constrained nature. Let the words and thoughts flow.
> I'd rather hear the person and personality through their actual language than it be filtered


I want the ideas and thoughts to flow, but I do want the words to have a bit of decorum, civility and respect. 

In many threads where the more colourful language starts to flow, I think often its more about the person wanting to be the centre of attention and to stir up $#** just for the sake of stirring up $#**, rather than actually having anything of value to say or to contribute to the community. 

To have a true sense of community, all members experience with the community needs to be taken into consideration. I'm not going to cater to a few loud mouth, attention seeking members at the expense of alienating others. 

I realize that's not going to be everyone's cup of tea and that ehMac will never be even close to perfect... but there are too many forums I find that just have a lot of noise. I started ehMac to be a forum that has a more friendly, community feel to it. 

Pretty much any heated or controversial idea or concept can be discussed on ehMac. All that's asked is that we have a level of decorum. Again, things will get missed, but see my analogy of the speeding tickets. We'll try the best we can. 

No ones perfect *ESPECIALLY* myself. I've regretted many things I've said especially at times when I've had my buttons pushed. I know Chealion regrets the comment he made the other week when moderating a topic. One thing I do know, is that he's one of the nicest, selfless persons I've met online. 

Anyways, Love and Peace


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

While that is true, Moscool it is probably a good thing as it started a discussion that has been an eye opener for many members. I do not regret starting the thread and I have read people's opinions with great interest.

I did not realize that you did post it as a link until much later on, after starting the thread and for that, I apologize.

So, thanks for getting the ball rolling. It has been worthwhile.

Cheers


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

Mr Mayor,

If you wanted to create a community feel you have succeeded. Keep going.

A discussion like this one show people care.


----------



## Cynical Critic (Sep 2, 2002)

Sinc, I agree with your earlier post about using swear words sparingly if at all.

A friend of mine used to say that swearing is (usually) an inarticulate expression of strong emotion. Let's try and use more creative words when possible.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Pamela (Feb 20, 2003)

*I'm all for swearing if it's used sparingly - then it can be terribly effective. Otherwise, it becomes tiresome in a hurry.* 

You obviously haven't seen 'I Heart Huckabees then". Classic swear strings. LOVED IT.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

I think we should change all the swear words to major brand
names like the British do...You know like "Smeg".

I'm sure there are others...But then people would most likely
want to learn the origins and then after the words became
known for what they were...Then the new words would be censored.

Ahhh...SMEG!!!

Dave


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I don't really have any problem with the nature of the language on ehMac only when a lively thread gets derailed.
A PM to the person can work wonders if couched correctly.

Context appropriate - and if you're uncomfortable and NOT participating then read another thread rather than stomp in an derail.

my 2¢.  

and a cartoon comment can be fun and effective


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> So, Bo. You married? I know some real nice single guys on ehMac!


I don't have the best 'people' skills - I'm a bitch. So no, I'm not married ~ anymore. 

A feeble attempt to keep this on topic: 
I called my now ex-hubby a big fat f**k and told him he repulsed me. I thought that was an appropriate use of the word. [he _was]/i] a big fat f**k]. 
To this day, I can think of no other word that would have truly expressed how disgusting he was to me at that moment. I selected my words very carefully. A whole string of 'alternative' words might have only confounded the poor man. 

Cheers
Bo_


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

Hmmm,,,feeling a bit awkward....how do I respond.....dilemma! Here goes....

BoPeep, sorry to hear your marriage didn't work out. You must have loved him at some time, so it's sad when things deriorate to the point of disgust or hatred. Looking around this world, you're certainly not alone in this.
Regarding the things you said to him, you felt a need to release your feelings and didn't care what you said or how you said it. If you were trying to sever the relationship, then it didn't matter if he came back after the verbal attack. Mission accomolished!
The relevance to the topic at hand is that it's natural to feel anger or disgust with people. The members here at ehMac are not in that dire a circumstance that they should risk alienating other members because they don't agree with a point of view. Unlike in a marriage, we can choose with whom and when we want to interact. The collective relationships must work out in order to have every one respecting each other. I think thats what makes ehMac different from other forums and why it's important to keep the decorum at the highest levels. We're all "family" around here...let's keep the harmony, but let us also continue to have informative and thought-provoking discussions. And, yes, have passion and fire in your arguments, just respect your adversaries.
(I hope that came out the right way)
Dr G, is that anywhere in the World According To Macnutt?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

bopeep confessed;


> I don't have the best 'people' skills - *I'm a bitch.* So no, I'm not married ~ anymore.


I just know there is a sitcom in that admission


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> sorry to hear your marriage didn't work out.


Don't be sorry, I never should have been married in the first place - at least not to him. No hate, no nothing, that's why I left, but thanks anyway. 

I called him what I did because that's what he was. and it was really gross.









Cheers
Bo


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

Peter, a fine point about keeping "harmony" among the various family members here in ehMacLand.

Marriage is a sharing between unequal partners. However, it is in this sharing that an equilibrium is found, and this balance helps to make up for the various inequalities that exist whenever two people share a part of their lives together. It is when the balance is thrown off that the harmony you spoke of begins to deteriorate. Marriage is not an easy situation to maintain, and you should never take your partner for granted. Honesty and trust is the surest way to open communication, and love grows upon this communication and sharing.


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

> I called him what I did because that's what he was. and it was really gross.


Don't despise him. Maybe it was a gland problem.


----------



## bopeep (Jun 7, 2004)

> Maybe it was a gland problem.


Ya, that was it. Gland problem. If shovelling too much food into his mouth was a gland problem, then sure. 

I don't despise him. Just someone I used to know. 

Cheers
Bo


----------



## Peter Scharman (Jan 4, 2002)

See.....it was a salivary gland problem! A couple of appendages seemed to be working overtime as well.


----------

