It is currently Wed Jul 30, 2014 10:22 pm

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 18  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:32 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:02 pm
Posts: 2425
Dr. Shades wrote:
antishock8 wrote:
I love the fact that Harmony has now said prick at least a dozen times, and the word "c***" has been bandied about, too.

Do not circumvent the word censor. Allow it to do its work.

Quote:
My post is moved to outdarkness for "hostility". Weird.

Your deraliment was hostile, not so much your post.

Your intent was to disrupt a thread in progress, not to add content.


Wow. You know my intent? You, Sir, have an amazing ability to miss the point sometimes. Let me explain what my intent was vice you assuming to know what it was:

1) I wasn't "circumventing" the word censor. I was typing the word in the same exact manner it was produced in the first place. The "intent" behind that was to show that the word was being used and wasn't being censored, nor moved... Hostility aside.

2) There was no hostility in my post. My point wasn't to derail, but to illustrate a clear moderating bias. I knew that those two posters could use the words "pricks" and "c***s", but if I posted just one, non-vulgar word, that it would be moderated. I'm pretty sure my single-word post would not have derailed the thread, and in fact... It would have been ignored.


(*) (*) (*) (*)

_________________
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:38 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9090
Quote:
Dr. Shades---you're absolutely right. If the Brethren were trustworthy in the sense you're suggesting, then DCP and Bill Hamblin would not have been able to strong-arm them into accepting the Two Cumorahs theory.


Cool! Can you show me where this happened? And where the Church has officially accepted the two Cumorah theory?

Quote:

Also, I think that we would probably expect that more of them would be called to their offices on the basis of spiritual gifts, rather than their business and administrative acumen.


Are the two mutually exclusive? Can we also note that we have numerous educators among the top ranks?

Quote:
Indeed, things have come a long way. Whereas B. H. Roberts was dismissed for urging the Brethren to let go of the notion that the Book of Mormon was strictly historical, now the Chairmen of the Board actively request that the Church's well-compensated apologists formulate silly theories and revenge strategies in order to bolster the Church's increasingly shaky spiritual foundations.



Hahahahaaaaaaahhhhhaa.

Always good for a laugh! :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:42 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 3:15 pm
Posts: 3082
Mister Scratch wrote:
Dr. Shades---you're absolutely right. If the Brethren were trustworthy in the sense you're suggesting, then DCP and Bill Hamblin would not have been able to strong-arm them into accepting the Two Cumorahs theory.


When did the "Brethren" ever begin publicly and officially supporting a >1 Cumorah theory? :surprised:

_________________
Cinepro's Got a Blog


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:31 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 9933
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
antishock8 wrote:
1) I wasn't "circumventing" the word censor. I was typing the word in the same exact manner it was produced in the first place. The "intent" behind that was to show that the word was being used and wasn't being censored, nor moved... Hostility aside.

You're wrong. The "c" word was being censored. The word "vagina," which you typed, wasn't. They're two different words.

Quote:
2) There was no hostility in my post. My point wasn't to derail, but to illustrate a clear moderating bias. I knew that those two posters could use the words "pricks" and "c***s", but if I posted just one, non-vulgar word, that it would be moderated.

The "c" word has been in the censor for many months.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure my single-word post would not have derailed the thread, and in fact... It would have been ignored.

Next time, explain your intent.

_________________
"Apparently it takes LDS Inc. about 5 to 10 years to forget how much it hurt the last time it shot itself in the foot."

--Brother of Jerry, Recovery from Mormonism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:44 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:13 pm
Posts: 5604
cinepro wrote:
Mister Scratch wrote:
Dr. Shades---you're absolutely right. If the Brethren were trustworthy in the sense you're suggesting, then DCP and Bill Hamblin would not have been able to strong-arm them into accepting the Two Cumorahs theory.


When did the "Brethren" ever begin publicly and officially supporting a >1 Cumorah theory? :surprised:


Hi there, cinepro. Well, we are now "officially" entering the very murky waters of "official," "public" LDS doctrine. To cut to the chase: I'm speaking specifically of the so-called "2nd Watson Letter," in which 1st Presidency Secretary Michael Watson (supposedly) "officially" recanted his earlier, "official" statement that the Hill Cumorah is, and always has been, located in New York. We know that Bill Hamblin somehow persuaded Watson to write the second letter, though we don't know how Hamblin accomplished this, since neither DCP nor Bill Hamblin will tell us.

So, is this legitimately "official"? I would say yes, insofar as any Church teaching is "official."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:45 pm 
God

Joined: Thu Oct 26, 2006 6:35 pm
Posts: 18144
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
Good grief.

I promise to never use prick again. Now I'll call him a self-righteous arrogant stick with a metal point on it.

How's that? Is that too sexual for anyone?

_________________
(Nevo, Jan 23) And the Melchizedek Priesthood may not have been restored until the summer of 1830, several months after the organization of the Church.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:47 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Jason Bourne wrote:
Quote:
Dr. Shades---you're absolutely right. If the Brethren were trustworthy in the sense you're suggesting, then DCP and Bill Hamblin would not have been able to strong-arm them into accepting the Two Cumorahs theory.


Cool! Can you show me where this happened? And where the Church has officially accepted the two Cumorah theory?


I'd be glad to, Jason, as soon as you can provide me with a really solid, workable definition of just what, exactly, constitutes "official" doctrine within the LDS Church.

Quote:
Quote:

Also, I think that we would probably expect that more of them would be called to their offices on the basis of spiritual gifts, rather than their business and administrative acumen.


Are the two mutually exclusive? Can we also note that we have numerous educators among the top ranks?


No, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. But I do think that the current Brethren were "called" primarily for their business acumen and administrative skills. And "educators"? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you referring to BKP, for instance? If so, he's hardly a "teacher" in the humble, salt-of-the-earth sense.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:50 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:13 pm
Posts: 5604
harmony wrote:
Good grief.

I promise to never use prick again. Now I'll call him a self-righteous arrogant stick with a metal point on it.

How's that? Is that too sexual for anyone?


I wouldn't worry about it, Harmony. For the most part, I think that those who were "offended" are merely putting on a display of incredibly immature Victorianism. I mean, at least one of the "offended" once said that he preferred to imagine that Heavenly Father impregnated Mary via artificial insemination rather than good, old fashioned coitus. It's therefore no surprise that a word like "prick" would send them scurrying for the smelling salts.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 2:51 pm 
God

Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 11:00 am
Posts: 1047
Scratch, how was church in your ward this last Sunday? I am curious to know the topic of your priesthood lesson and any thoughts you had about it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:11 pm 
Has More Degrees Than Droopy
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 14, 2008 3:21 pm
Posts: 2532
Location: Cassius University: Ho Chi Minh Professor of American Military History
I grew up on a farm as well, and like my namesake doubleagent I have to agree that calling a cattle prod a prick would get me laughed out of town. A prick is a painful little shot in the tush or a big shot in the tush. But never of a cow.

_________________
Whatever appears to be against the Book of Mormon is going to be overturned at some time in the future. So we can be pretty open minded.-charity 3/7/07

MASH quotes
I peeked in the back [of the Bible] Frank, the Devil did it.
I avoid church religiously.
This isn't one of my sermons, I expect you to listen.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 3:59 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jan 26, 2008 7:02 pm
Posts: 2425
A "prick" for me is a way to describe anyone from the moderating team on this website. IOW, my "intent" is to tell the mods that they're hypocritical assholes in every sense of the word "prick".

Also, "prick" means "dick". A big, pulsating, hairy, veiny, dick. The Nehor should appreciate that imagery.

_________________
You can’t trust adults to tell you the truth.

Scream the lie, whisper the retraction.- The Left


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:07 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9090
Quote:
I'd be glad to, Jason, as soon as you can provide me with a really solid, workable definition of just what, exactly, constitutes "official" doctrine within the LDS Church.



I am not sure I can. But still can you show me anywhere from any top LDS leader that demonstrates that the two Cumorah theory is more in vogue than the one Cumorah theory that seemingly was, and still may be, in vogue?



Quote:
No, I don't think they are mutually exclusive. But I do think that the current Brethren were "called" primarily for their business acumen and administrative skills.


well you may be right and you may be wrong. I know quite a few leaders who are at the top of their field and are still quite spiritual persons.

Quote:
And "educators"? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you referring to BKP, for instance? If so, he's hardly a "teacher" in the humble, salt-of-the-earth sense.


Well BKP was a simple seminary teacher to begin with and later in CES admin. So yea, he counts even if he was a crusty teacher (which is debatable). But you have Elder Bednar, a professor then college President as well as Eyring and Holland all of whom got there start as teachers.

Oh and there are lots of attorneys in the top leadership and most attorneys are lousy at business.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:10 pm 
God
User avatar

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:00 pm
Posts: 9090
harmony wrote:
Good grief.

I promise to never use prick again. Now I'll call him a self-righteous arrogant stick with a metal point on it.

How's that? Is that too sexual for anyone?


Tee heeeeeheheheeee :mrgreen:


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 4:38 pm 
Dr. Shades wrote:
antishock8 wrote:
1) I wasn't "circumventing" the word censor. I was typing the word in the same exact manner it was produced in the first place. The "intent" behind that was to show that the word was being used and wasn't being censored, nor moved... Hostility aside.

You're wrong. The "c" word was being censored. The word "vagina," which you typed, wasn't. They're two different words.

Quote:
2) There was no hostility in my post. My point wasn't to derail, but to illustrate a clear moderating bias. I knew that those two posters could use the words "pricks" and "c***s", but if I posted just one, non-vulgar word, that it would be moderated.

The "c" word has been in the censor for many months.

Quote:
I'm pretty sure my single-word post would not have derailed the thread, and in fact... It would have been ignored.

Next time, explain your intent.


Wrong Shades, I did circumvent the word c***, with the explanation that it's not okay for men to call women that on here so it shouldn't be okay for women to call men something very similar. And if you do some non biased thinking you will appreciate that is in fact how Harmony used the work "prick", in an offensive obscene context, not in the context it was used in the bible or the D&C. The phrase which both the bible and D & C use is metaphorically referring to authority in the positive sense. Just as an ox is guided by the goad/prick of the goad, so too can an individual be guided for their own good by an authority figure. That's not how it was used by Harmony no matter how much she denies. In fact she has made it clear because she's angry she will continue to use the word despite the fact that DCP has said what his interpretation is and others have told her as well. So she clearly is aware and yet thinks nothing of it that she is being vulgar with her language, under the guise that scripture uses the word. This may seem like nit picking to some, but if the rules are one isn't supposed to use vulgar language given the context of a word's use then those are the rules and should be followed. Of course DCP, myself, Nightingale can handle vulgar language but I don't like it in real life and I will say something under the right circumstances, just as I don't like reading it on a board. Context is extremely important in appreciating how words are meant to be interpreted. Antishock said nothing vulgar because he didn't put the word "vagina" in any context.

Keep in mind Harmony is the one who wanted to moderate to get rid of offensive language, and yet even though people are telling her it's offensive she's still saying she will continue to use it.


Top
  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 5:48 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:31 am
Posts: 323
Mister Scratch wrote:
I wouldn't worry about it, Harmony. For the most part, I think that those who were "offended" are merely putting on a display of incredibly immature Victorianism. I mean, at least one of the "offended" once said that he preferred to imagine that Heavenly Father impregnated Mary via artificial insemination rather than good, old fashioned coitus. It's therefore no surprise that a word like "prick" would send them scurrying for the smelling salts.


It's unfortunate that many people, quite a few Mormons among 'em, don't "worry about it" when they "offend" people. It's always the offendee's problem isn't it? I don't see a lot of statements on this thread about people being "offended". I thought the question was more one of whether the term "prick" when directed at a specific person, in anger (or what seems like an angry tone) is vulgar or not. I'm not quite sure at the moment if curse words are allowed in this forum at all (I know there are a few words that are blanked out) but looking at it purely from a language point of view, it seems there is no connotation other than vulgarity when used in the way harmony used it, whether she intended that or not. There is nothing scriptural, it would seem, in calling someone a "self-righteous prick".

As for being offended, who said they were? Other than perhaps DCP, although I can't see where he specifically stated that. But who wouldn't take it as the vulgarity it seems when stated to them directly?

A while back, a poster here called me a "bitch", out of the blue, for reasons I could not fathom. It didn't get moderated out but nor did I complain to the mods about it (and this was before the Great Moderational Experiment and I think that rules have changed since then). While many people might consider that a very mild comment and so common as not to even be vulgar any more, I'm not accustomed to being called a B. As well, in my work experience, any male who refers to a female with that term is being purposely offensive and it is often part of a larger habit and practice of abuse. I know it is not possible to weight our words and formulate our posts so as to tiptoe around each and every reader's unique sensibilities, whatever they may be, but it's fairly obvious that using derogatory or profane speech directed towards another (yes, even in cyberspace, as message boards particularly are a "community") has a high probability of wounding the other person or their supporters or many readers or all the above.

To say that one doesn't care whether someone else takes their profanity personally does not make the "offended" one ridiculous but rather reflects poorly on the offender, no matter how much they deny that. To me, it's a bull-in-a-china-shop approach to human interaction to insist on one's right to be vulgar and then ridicule the party who takes issue with you for that. Bull or bully - close to the same thing in that sense.

Paying attention to the language we use to communicate, particularly crucial in the medium we are using here, is not "incredibly immature Victorianism" but rather displays a wish to maximize communication (very much needed given the subject matter here) and possibly a wish to conduct oneself civilly with other posters, which has to be the foundation of any board or else who would want to even participate?

Mr. Scratch, I'd be interested to see how you would react if DCP called you a "self-righteous prick". That would most instantly become the sig line of quite a few posters, including yours, I'm sure. Can you deny that you would take it as at least a very derogatory and offensive comment, if not acknowledge that it is listed in the dictionary to be "vulgar slang"?

That is all the point has been for me on this. Hardly immature. Hardly Victorian. Just stating a fact. It is vulgar slang. I believe there is a good chance that harmony did not realize that but still it's hard for me to imagine using a scriptural term and meaning in a derogatory way against a fellow church member (or anyone actually). So either way, it is surprising - that is all. I have no quarrel with harmony. I was just interested in the language part of this discussion and trying to be objective about that at least.

It's not "the word" as Scratch tries to portray it above. It is how it is used. That was the point. I can say "prick" 100 times a day at work and think nothing of it (with the connotation referred to in my above post re injections in a medical setting) but there can be no denying that using it as a derogatory noun, especially enhanced with a negative adjective, is bound to be seen as intending offence. Even in the 21st Century.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:00 pm 
Hermit
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 10:12 pm
Posts: 5749
Location: Cave
Let it be said, Harmony, we have example number 2 for this thread alone where professor Peterson has taken issue with someone for using a narrow and technical definition of a word that typically has broader cannotations and feels any attempts to stick to the narrow definition are exercises in evasion.

But when it comes to the word "anti-Mormon" oh no...

_________________
Elliot Sober: "Our current ignorance is no evidence for the truth of any explanation, creationist or otherwise."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:40 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Nightingale wrote:

Mr. Scratch, I'd be interested to see how you would react if DCP called you a "self-righteous prick".


Frankly, I'd love it. I hope he calls me this sometime very soon.

Quote:
That would most instantly become the sig line of quite a few posters, including yours, I'm sure. Can you deny that you would take it as at least a very derogatory and offensive comment,


Yes, I can deny that.

Quote:
if not acknowledge that it is listed in the dictionary to be "vulgar slang"?


I do acknowledge that.

Quote:
It's not "the word" as Scratch tries to portray it above. It is how it is used. That was the point. I can say "prick" 100 times a day at work and think nothing of it (with the connotation referred to in my above post re injections in a medical setting) but there can be no denying that using it as a derogatory noun, especially enhanced with a negative adjective, is bound to be seen as intending offence. Even in the 21st Century.


Hey, no problem, Nightingale. And I appreciate your objectivity here. I was merely trying to point out a bit of hypocrisy on the part of a certain poster who, on the one hand, praises his relative for being an "artist with profanity," and yet, on the other hand, feigns great offense over the word "prick." This is the same person who rather freely characterizes others as "jack asses," and who claims that people should "feel embarrassed" when they use such language.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 6:43 pm 
Master Mahan

Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 1:13 pm
Posts: 5604
Jason Bourne wrote:
Quote:
I'd be glad to, Jason, as soon as you can provide me with a really solid, workable definition of just what, exactly, constitutes "official" doctrine within the LDS Church.



I am not sure I can. But still can you show me anywhere from any top LDS leader that demonstrates that the two Cumorah theory is more in vogue than the one Cumorah theory that seemingly was, and still may be, in vogue?


Jason---

I don't believe I ever said that the 2 Cumorah theory was "more in vogue."



Quote:
Quote:
And "educators"? I'm not sure what you're getting at. Are you referring to BKP, for instance? If so, he's hardly a "teacher" in the humble, salt-of-the-earth sense.


Well BKP was a simple seminary teacher to begin with and later in CES admin. So yea, he counts even if he was a crusty teacher (which is debatable).


I disagree. I don't think that BKP "counts" since, as you point out, he was in CES admin. If he'd been plucked straight from the seminary classroom, then I think you'd have a point.

Quote:
But you have Elder Bednar, a professor then college President as well as Eyring and Holland all of whom got there start as teachers.


Yes, they got their *start*, but they obviously had to prove their mettle as administrators and future CEO-Apostles.

Quote:
Oh and there are lots of attorneys in the top leadership and most attorneys are lousy at business.


Not when the "business" involves legal finagling and keeping a lot of things very, very quiet. Attorneys can be quite good at that.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Our newest member, Wayneman: Shades' missionary companion??
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:06 pm 
Elder

Joined: Sun Jan 14, 2007 12:31 am
Posts: 323
Mister Scratch wrote:
Nightingale wrote:

Mr. Scratch, I'd be interested to see how you would react if DCP called you a "self-righteous prick".


Frankly, I'd love it. I hope he calls me this sometime very soon.

Quote:
That would most instantly become the sig line of quite a few posters, including yours, I'm sure. Can you deny that you would take it as at least a very derogatory and offensive comment,


Yes, I can deny that.

Hey, no problem, Nightingale. And I appreciate your objectivity here. I was merely trying to point out a bit of hypocrisy on the part of a certain poster who, on the one hand, praises his relative for being an "artist with profanity," and yet, on the other hand, feigns great offense over the word "prick." This is the same person who rather freely characterizes others as "jack asses," and who claims that people should "feel embarrassed" when they use such language.


You'd love it? In a positive way? I'd like to see that too!

You don't see it as derogatory? If DCP called you a name like that? That does surprise me.

No problem here either, Scratch. I have no quarrel with you. I do consider myself quite objective in that I don't have a horse in any race. I was a convert for a few years and reverted back to my pre-mo faith as I was more comfortable there (that's the short version). I don't agree with some Mormon teachings but more especially with some of the practices and the way the doctrine works out in real life but I don't hate Mormons or any particular Mormon. I must admit to having a spot of angst still towards one particular bishop but again that is another story. Those are just some of the reasons I can be objective about a lot of the topics but I certainly understand how people who are more involved, on both sides, can get heated about it all. I do myself on issues of abuse, falsehoods, mischaracterization and lack of empathy, among others.

I don't follow everything as I have such limited time so I readily acknowledge I don't know the full back story of any posters or any ongoing topics or events here. I don't know about the language issues that you describe above. All I can say is that perhaps "ass" is not considered so vulgar any more due to such widespread usage and particularly by putting a "jack" in front of the term it renders it quite tame. That's just a guess. As to the profanity comment and others I just don't know so I'll have to leave it at that.

I recall that you explained how you like the church but not the apologetics. To me, that vaguely explains your apparent hostility towards DCP. What I'm wondering is if there's anything that could make you examine the church like you do FARMS, etc. :)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:17 pm 
Founder & Visionary
User avatar

Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2006 2:07 pm
Posts: 9933
Location: Shady Acres Status: MODERATOR
I'm sure we can all agree that calling someone a "self-righteous prick" is far, far more offensive than the biblical metaphor "kick against the pricks."

Does the word "prick" when used as an insult (as opposed to when it's used to describe a low-tech cattle prod) rise to the level of the "c" word in the offensiveness scale? I don't know; I'm asking y'all's opinion.

Either way, will it solve this whole controversy if harmony agreed to never call anyone a "self-righteous prick" ever again?

_________________
"Apparently it takes LDS Inc. about 5 to 10 years to forget how much it hurt the last time it shot itself in the foot."

--Brother of Jerry, Recovery from Mormonism


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re:
PostPosted: Tue Feb 17, 2009 8:27 pm 
Dr. Shades wrote:
Does the word "prick" when used as an insult (as opposed to when it's used to describe a low-tech cattle prod) rise to the level of the "c" word in the offensiveness scale? I don't know; I'm asking y'all's opinion.


No it doesn't. The "c-word" is particularly offensive in society itself.

Dr. Shades wrote:
Either way, will it solve this whole controversy if harmony agreed to never call anyone a "self-righteous prick" ever again?


What controversy? I doubt that it mortally wounded Dan. When posters go to that level (ahem, something I should know about), it only weakens their arguments, which is why I'm not in favour of censorship. You live and learn.


Top
  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 371 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15 ... 18  Next

All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Juggler Vain, Nightlion and 34 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Revival Theme By Brandon Designs By B.Design-Studio © 2007-2008 Brandon
Revival Theme Based off SubLite By Echo © 2007-2008 Echo
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group