![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 14 to 38 of 42. Go back in thread:
Posted by sunnydays on December 31, 2006, at 21:07:12
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule, posted by Dr. Bob on December 31, 2006, at 16:00:23
I think they are sometimes necessary. Many people just don't have other words, or a strong word can seem necessary to explain something. I don't use swear words myself, but that's more because of how much I heard them used growing up and wanting to be different than that. I'm not offended in the least when other people use them. Personally, I really think they should be allowed, and continue the asterisking.
sunnydays
Posted by JeffSmith on January 1, 2007, at 18:06:19
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule, posted by Dr. Bob on December 31, 2006, at 16:00:23
> > if anyones offended by the full spelling of the words then wouldnt they be just as equally offended by the words not so cleverly disguised by that stupid asterisk?
>
> Would it be better just not to allow the words at all?
>
> BobIm trying to figure out why you would even ask me that question when its perfectly clear from my original post that my answer would obviously be "No, it wouldnt be better".
Is that your way of saying "Just be grateful for being allowed to use those words in censored form"?
Posted by muffled on January 2, 2007, at 0:38:13
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule, posted by JeffSmith on January 1, 2007, at 18:06:19
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 3, 2007, at 3:31:39
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule, posted by JeffSmith on January 1, 2007, at 18:06:19
> > Would it be better just not to allow the words at all?
>
> its perfectly clear from my original post that my answer would obviously be "No, it wouldnt be better".OK. I don't think the asterisks make things worse, so if we keep the words, let's keep the asterisks, too?
Bob
Posted by JeffSmith on January 4, 2007, at 17:43:27
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule, posted by Dr. Bob on January 3, 2007, at 3:31:39
> > > Would it be better just not to allow the words at all?
> >
> > its perfectly clear from my original post that my answer would obviously be "No, it wouldnt be better".
>
> OK. I don't think the asterisks make things worse, so if we keep the words, let's keep the asterisks, too?
>
> BobWell since you asked : )
I say that the asterisks do make things worse, and so if we keep the words then lets not keep the asterisks.
I could elaborate forever on why but Ill spare you my rant as I doubt it would change anything... and I should probably focus on the 1000 other problems I have rather than this.
Posted by 10derHeart on January 4, 2007, at 18:45:39
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » Dr. Bob, posted by JeffSmith on January 4, 2007, at 17:43:27
They don't make things worse for me. I like them. I think they help maintain a little bit of a kinder, gentler, more civilized community, as a whole, here.
And this is from someone who spent 22+ years in the military and can keep up in a swearing contest with most anyone. But...there's are times and places to choose to temper that (eg, use of asterisks), or not to speak that way at all. It seems nice to me for Babble to be one of those places.
Vulgarities have their purpose, perhaps, and can be an effective way to express very strong feelings. But OTOH, that sort of language also may upset folks and make for a harsher way of communicating overall. And harsh can become stressful, confusing, even hurtful sometimes.
The asterisks seem like a pretty good compromise, something that is hard to come by here at times, and so is a valuable thing to hang on to.
Just my few cents worth :-)
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2007, at 7:42:58
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » Dr. Bob, posted by JeffSmith on January 4, 2007, at 17:43:27
So, because you are not offended by ~any~ offesnive words, no one else is?
Personally, most don't bother me.. but I know some bother others, and in my world, I like to take their feelings into account.
One certain word DOES offend me.. I do not like any word that takes a part of the female anatomy and turns it into an offensive word. Do we allow all others but not that one? Or allow that one and not worry about all the women (and men) who find that word horrible offensive?
Yes, some of the milder, more simple ones, it does seem a little silly to block.. but, where do you draw the line? Thats the problem.
Nikki
Posted by JeffSmith on January 5, 2007, at 12:58:30
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » JeffSmith, posted by NikkiT2 on January 5, 2007, at 7:42:58
> So, because you are not offended by ~any~ offensive words, no one else is?
Did I say that? : ) No, I never said because Im not offended by ~any~ offensive words no one else is. And I also never said that I was not offended by ~any~ offensive words... but I will now: Personally Im not offended in the slightest bit by the mere act of my eyes reading any "offensive" words on a message board... especially if the offensive word was not specifically directed at me in an attempt to offend/hurt me. But in this thread we were never even talking about people being offended by offensive words as a topic, and what I originally said was only that it was illogical and ridiculous to censor certain words by replacing one letter of a particular word with an asterisk.
> Personally, most don't bother me.. but I know some bother others, and in my world, I like to take their feelings into account.I also take other peoples feelings into account in my world.
> One certain word DOES offend me.. I do not like any word that takes a part of the female anatomy and turns it into an offensive word. Do we allow all others but not that one? Or allow that one and not worry about all the women (and men) who find that word horrible offensive?
OK well I can actually think of two words that do what you described, so I'll assume you dont like either one of them.
Do we allow all other words but that one (or two)? No, IMO we allow all words equally. So, you then ask do we allow that word and not worry about the women/men who are horribly offended by that word?
Short answer is: Yes, we allow that word and not worry about the offended people.
Longer answer and explanation is this: Again, we werent talking about whether *words* should be allowed here or not, we were talking about whether they should be censored or not.
The word(s) you refer to already are (presumably) allowed here as long as the "u" in the word(s) is replaced by the asterisk. So the word very well could possibly be written here in censored form and you just may happen to stumble upon it and read it, right?
Lets pretend I wrote a post claiming "My mother is a total b*tch" (I wrote b*tch in the example but lets really pretend I had instead used the "C" word that offends you).
Now you come along and read my post and see the word b*tch (aka:the "C" word) that I just called my mother.
Are you saying then that you'd be "horribly offended" by the simple act of reading a word that wasnt even directed at or about you?? Just seeing the word "b*tch" written down causes you to become horribly offended?
OK, fine, so lets assume that does horribly offend you. So what does that mean? What exactly happens to you after reading a word that horribly offends you? How are you harmed? Are you left so affected that you'd be unable to continue reading my post? Does being horribly offended mean that you cant go on to read any other post here? Does it make you never want to visit here again?
How exactly does me calling my mother a b*tch affect you?And why should any of that be left up to me to have to "worry" about?
Lets pretend Im extremely upset with my mother and I want to come here (a place where I can vent any emotion or feeling and people will listen, probably not judge, may relate to my issue and maybe even help me) and I just need to vent by saying "My mother is a real b*tch ("C" word)!". Are you suggesting that I should stop myself, and all my thoughts, just to first think "Well so and so may be left to feel 'horribly offended' (whatever that means) if I call my mother a b*tch, so I better first try to come up with a non-offensive term or discription to express how Im feeling about her instead of using that word"??
If just reading a certain word that's in no way directed towards or about you causes you, or anyone, to feel a certain way then thats your issue to "worry" about and you shouldnt expect other people in an adult forum to not use certain words just so youre not somehow offended. No?
What if the word "Crazy" horribly offended me and I preferred that people not use that word and instead use "Mentally Ill"? Should the word "Crazy" then not be allowed to be used here?Anyway, as of now these words are apparently allowed here as long as one letter is replaced by an asterisk... so let me ask you this:
The "C" word offends you when written (and I assume also when its spoken). How do you feel about the "C" word if its written here in censored form, as in "c*nt"? Does it still offend you? Are you equally or less offended by the censored version as you are by reading the non censored version?
If youre equally offended then do you believe that the "C" word should not be allowed here even in censored form?
If youre less offended, or not offended at all, by the censored version then can you please explain exactly how and why that is when you are still fully aware of what the word is? I just cant comprehend that concept and am trying to understand it.> Yes, some of the milder, more simple ones, it does seem a little silly to block.. but, where do you draw the line? Thats the problem.
>
> NikkiI agree. : ) And where do you draw the line?
No, it wouldnt really be at all difficult for me to just simply censor my words or not use them at all if it pleases other people... Im 100% for being kind and civil and compassionate towards each other... but IMO censoring or ommitting certain words in order to prevent the possibility of certain people from becoming offended (by just reading them on a message board) is wrong to expect.
Not a huge issue though.
Posted by JeffSmith on January 5, 2007, at 13:01:30
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » JeffSmith, posted by 10derHeart on January 4, 2007, at 18:45:39
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 5, 2007, at 17:17:02
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » NikkiT2, posted by JeffSmith on January 5, 2007, at 12:58:30
> > So, because you are not offended by ~any~ offensive words, no one else is?
>
> Did I say that? : ) No, I never said because Im not offended by ~any~ offensive words no one else is. And I also never said that I was not offended by ~any~ offensive words... but I will now: Personally Im not offended in the slightest bit by the mere act of my eyes reading any "offensive" words on a message board... especially if the offensive word was not specifically directed at me in an attempt to offend/hurt me. But in this thread we were never even talking about people being offended by offensive words as a topic, and what I originally said was only that it was illogical and ridiculous to censor certain words by replacing one letter of a particular word with an asterisk.
>
> > Personally, most don't bother me.. but I know some bother others, and in my world, I like to take their feelings into account.
>
> I also take other peoples feelings into account in my world.
>
> > One certain word DOES offend me.. I do not like any word that takes a part of the female anatomy and turns it into an offensive word. Do we allow all others but not that one? Or allow that one and not worry about all the women (and men) who find that word horrible offensive?
>
> OK well I can actually think of two words that do what you described, so I'll assume you dont like either one of them.
> Do we allow all other words but that one (or two)? No, IMO we allow all words equally. So, you then ask do we allow that word and not worry about the women/men who are horribly offended by that word?
> Short answer is: Yes, we allow that word and not worry about the offended people.
> Longer answer and explanation is this: Again, we werent talking about whether *words* should be allowed here or not, we were talking about whether they should be censored or not.
> The word(s) you refer to already are (presumably) allowed here as long as the "u" in the word(s) is replaced by the asterisk. So the word very well could possibly be written here in censored form and you just may happen to stumble upon it and read it, right?
> Lets pretend I wrote a post claiming "My mother is a total b*tch" (I wrote b*tch in the example but lets really pretend I had instead used the "C" word that offends you).
> Now you come along and read my post and see the word b*tch (aka:the "C" word) that I just called my mother.
> Are you saying then that you'd be "horribly offended" by the simple act of reading a word that wasnt even directed at or about you?? Just seeing the word "b*tch" written down causes you to become horribly offended?
> OK, fine, so lets assume that does horribly offend you. So what does that mean? What exactly happens to you after reading a word that horribly offends you? How are you harmed? Are you left so affected that you'd be unable to continue reading my post? Does being horribly offended mean that you cant go on to read any other post here? Does it make you never want to visit here again?
> How exactly does me calling my mother a b*tch affect you?
>
> And why should any of that be left up to me to have to "worry" about?
> Lets pretend Im extremely upset with my mother and I want to come here (a place where I can vent any emotion or feeling and people will listen, probably not judge, may relate to my issue and maybe even help me) and I just need to vent by saying "My mother is a real b*tch ("C" word)!". Are you suggesting that I should stop myself, and all my thoughts, just to first think "Well so and so may be left to feel 'horribly offended' (whatever that means) if I call my mother a b*tch, so I better first try to come up with a non-offensive term or discription to express how Im feeling about her instead of using that word"??
> If just reading a certain word that's in no way directed towards or about you causes you, or anyone, to feel a certain way then thats your issue to "worry" about and you shouldnt expect other people in an adult forum to not use certain words just so youre not somehow offended. No?
> What if the word "Crazy" horribly offended me and I preferred that people not use that word and instead use "Mentally Ill"? Should the word "Crazy" then not be allowed to be used here?
>
> Anyway, as of now these words are apparently allowed here as long as one letter is replaced by an asterisk... so let me ask you this:
> The "C" word offends you when written (and I assume also when its spoken). How do you feel about the "C" word if its written here in censored form, as in "c*nt"? Does it still offend you? Are you equally or less offended by the censored version as you are by reading the non censored version?
> If youre equally offended then do you believe that the "C" word should not be allowed here even in censored form?
> If youre less offended, or not offended at all, by the censored version then can you please explain exactly how and why that is when you are still fully aware of what the word is? I just cant comprehend that concept and am trying to understand it.
>
> > Yes, some of the milder, more simple ones, it does seem a little silly to block.. but, where do you draw the line? Thats the problem.
> >
> > Nikki
>
> I agree. : ) And where do you draw the line?
> No, it wouldnt really be at all difficult for me to just simply censor my words or not use them at all if it pleases other people... Im 100% for being kind and civil and compassionate towards each other... but IMO censoring or ommitting certain words in order to prevent the possibility of certain people from becoming offended (by just reading them on a message board) is wrong to expect.
> Not a huge issue though.
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...in this thread..illogical and ..to censor..words by replacing a..letter with an asterisk...word allowed here as long as the ..is replaced by an asterisk...Let's pretend...equally offended by the censored version as the non-censored version..fully aware of what the word is...].
There is the potential ,IMO, that this thread has at least the question as to if putting the asterisk in the word makes it any less offensive, to those that think the word is offensive, for some could think that words that are deemed offensive to some, could not be offensive to some others.
If we look at that question, then does the use of an asterisk for one letter change the meaning of the word? If it does, then could we have two words meaning two things? If it does not change the meaning of the two forms of the word, then do we not have the theorem that[... if a=b and b=c, then does not a=c?..] Or, does not the theorem hold that quantities equal to the same quantity equal to each other?
Now let us suppose that someone wants to believe that one form of the word is offensive and the other form is not. I ask,in your opinions, would then one have to use their imaginiation as in a fantasy rather than reason to think that? If so, could they or could they not be deluding themselves into thinking that one form of the word is offensive and the other form with the asterisk is not offensive? If so, are delusions and/or fantasies a sound mental-health practice?
The asterisk has a historical meaning from centuries ago concerning swearing in relation to commandments that some faiths have from their God to them that I would like to discuss by email, if you would like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by AuntieMel on January 5, 2007, at 18:08:34
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » NikkiT2, posted by JeffSmith on January 5, 2007, at 12:58:30
Well, I guess I wouldn't like it if there were people here cursing like sailors (it's an expression - I like sailors)
And the idea that people might find us by googling those words gives me the willies.
But I didn't like it when people were blocked for forgetting either.
This seems to me to be a good in-between.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2007, at 4:57:08
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » NikkiT2, posted by JeffSmith on January 5, 2007, at 12:58:30
> lets assume that does horribly offend you. So what does that mean? What exactly happens to you after reading a word that horribly offends you? How are you harmed? Are you left so affected that you'd be unable to continue reading my post? Does being horribly offended mean that you cant go on to read any other post here? Does it make you never want to visit here again?
Maybe it would leave her feeling it's not so supportive here?
> Lets pretend Im extremely upset with my mother and I want to come here ... and I just need to vent
It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
> And why should any of that be left up to me to have to "worry" about?
> Are you suggesting that I should stop myself, and all my thoughts, just to first think "Well so and so may be left to feel 'horribly offended' ... if I call my mother a b*tch, so I better first try to come up with a non-offensive term or discription to express how Im feeling about her instead of using that word"??It isn't left up to you, the asterisking is automatic. And you wouldn't have to stop yourself first, you'd just have to stop yourself sometime before clicking "confirm". :-)
> The "C" word offends you when written (and I assume also when its spoken). How do you feel about the "C" word if its written here in censored form, as in [xxx]?
May I ask why you spelled out the censored form that time, instead of just saying "in censored form", as you did every other time?
> > but, where do you draw the line? Thats the problem.
>
> I agree. : ) And where do you draw the line?FYI, I've drawn the line at "often or usually disparaging, obscene, offensive, or vulgar":
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
> No, it wouldnt really be at all difficult for me to just simply censor my words or not use them at all if it pleases other people... Im 100% for being kind and civil and compassionate towards each other...
Great, it would please me, so I guess that's settled. :-)
Bob
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2007, at 6:15:05
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2007, at 4:57:08
> > lets assume that does horribly offend you. So what does that mean? What exactly happens to you after reading a word that horribly offends you? How are you harmed? Are you left so affected that you'd be unable to continue reading my post? Does being horribly offended mean that you cant go on to read any other post here? Does it make you never want to visit here again?
>
> Maybe it would leave her feeling it's not so supportive here?
>
> > Lets pretend Im extremely upset with my mother and I want to come here ... and I just need to vent
>
> It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.
>
> > And why should any of that be left up to me to have to "worry" about?
> > Are you suggesting that I should stop myself, and all my thoughts, just to first think "Well so and so may be left to feel 'horribly offended' ... if I call my mother a b*tch, so I better first try to come up with a non-offensive term or discription to express how Im feeling about her instead of using that word"??
>
> It isn't left up to you, the asterisking is automatic. And you wouldn't have to stop yourself first, you'd just have to stop yourself sometime before clicking "confirm". :-)
>
> > The "C" word offends you when written (and I assume also when its spoken). How do you feel about the "C" word if its written here in censored form, as in [xxx]?
>
> May I ask why you spelled out the censored form that time, instead of just saying "in censored form", as you did every other time?
>
> > > but, where do you draw the line? Thats the problem.
> >
> > I agree. : ) And where do you draw the line?
>
> FYI, I've drawn the line at "often or usually disparaging, obscene, offensive, or vulgar":
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civil
>
> > No, it wouldnt really be at all difficult for me to just simply censor my words or not use them at all if it pleases other people... Im 100% for being kind and civil and compassionate towards each other...
>
> Great, it would please me, so I guess that's settled. :-)
>
> BobDr. Hsiung,
Jeff wrote,[...a word that horribly offends you..does it make you...?]
Your reply to Jeff was,[...maybe it would leave her feeling it's not so supportive here?...].
Is not one of the aspects of Jeff's post the question as to if putting the asterisk in place of a letter makes, or does not make, an offensive word non-offensive?
If the placing of the asterisk does not change the meaning of an offensive word, then could not the forum be considered to be , as you write,[...maybe..not so supportive ..?...]by your policy of allowing words deemed offensive or vulgar according to the M-W dictionary to be posted as acceptable here if there is an asterisk placed as a vowel in the offensive word?
Lou Pilder
Posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 11:15:40
In reply to Lou's response to aspects of Jeff Smith's post, posted by Lou Pilder on January 5, 2007, at 17:17:02
> > Friends,
> It is written here,[...in this thread..illogical and ..to censor..words by replacing a..letter with an asterisk...word allowed here as long as the ..is replaced by an asterisk...Let's pretend...equally offended by the censored version as the non-censored version..fully aware of what the word is...].
> There is the potential ,IMO, that this thread has at least the question as to if putting the asterisk in the word makes it any less offensive, to those that think the word is offensive, for some could think that words that are deemed offensive to some, could not be offensive to some others.Lou Im afraid to even attempt to reply to your post since I fear Im gonna come off looking like Im retarded... but Ill try. : )
So, so far I believe I understand what you just said. And yes, I do believe some may think in that way.> If we look at that question, then does the use of an asterisk for one letter change the meaning of the word? If it does, then could we have two words meaning two things? If it does not change the meaning of the two forms of the word, then do we not have the theorem that[... if a=b and b=c, then does not a=c?..] Or, does not the theorem hold that quantities equal to the same quantity equal to each other?
-No, the use of an * does not change the meaning/definition of any word in any way as far as I can comprehend.
-If it did change the meaning then yes, I do believe we'd have two words meaning two things.
-Ummmm...OK.... heres where my retardation comes in w/ the "...if a=b and b=c, then does not a=c?..". I think I *might* possibly be able to figure that one out if you could clarify what the specific sentences "a" "b" and "c" are?
-And yes (I think), quantities equal to the same quantity would be equal to each other.
-I just cant figure out what all of those things put together mean.> Now let us suppose that someone wants to believe that one form of the word is offensive and the other form is not. I ask,in your opinions, would then one have to use their imaginiation as in a fantasy rather than reason to think that?
Both forms of the word are still the same exact word... in order to believe one form of the word is offensive and the other is not youd have to:
-Choose to believe one form of the word did in fact have a different meaning than the other.
-Choose to believe that it had a different meaning despite the fact that there's no indication or evidence that it was intended to have a different meaning... and every indication that it was intended to have only one meaning.
-For some reason just choose to believe one form was offensive and one wasnt without being able to conclude for yourself why that is.
-Or some other reason(s) I couldnt even imagine what could be.
So yes, Id say you would absolutely have to use imagination as in fantasy rather than reason to think that.>If so, could they or could they not be deluding themselves into thinking that one form of the word >is offensive and the other form with the asterisk is not offensive? If so, are delusions and/or >fantasies a sound mental-health practice?
-Yes they could or could not be deluding themselves into thinking that. Are they? Id have to say yes, they are.
-I dont believe deluding oneself into believing something is at all a sound/healthy mental health practice... and fantasies, as in this context of perhaps fantasizing that one form of a word is non offensive and one is, sounds a lot like deluding.
But fantasizing in general about other things Im sure can be a perfectly sound MH practice.
>The asterisk has a historical meaning from centuries ago concerning swearing in relation to commandments that some faiths have from their God to them that I would like to discuss by email, if you would like.
- By "you" do you mean specifically me or anyone who would like? : )> Lou
> lpilder_1188@fuse.net
>
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2007, at 12:42:32
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of Jeff Smith's post » Lou Pilder, posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 11:15:40
>
> > > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...in this thread..illogical and ..to censor..words by replacing a..letter with an asterisk...word allowed here as long as the ..is replaced by an asterisk...Let's pretend...equally offended by the censored version as the non-censored version..fully aware of what the word is...].
> > There is the potential ,IMO, that this thread has at least the question as to if putting the asterisk in the word makes it any less offensive, to those that think the word is offensive, for some could think that words that are deemed offensive to some, could not be offensive to some others.
>
> Lou Im afraid to even attempt to reply to your post since I fear Im gonna come off looking like Im retarded... but Ill try. : )
> So, so far I believe I understand what you just said. And yes, I do believe some may think in that way.
>
> > If we look at that question, then does the use of an asterisk for one letter change the meaning of the word? If it does, then could we have two words meaning two things? If it does not change the meaning of the two forms of the word, then do we not have the theorem that[... if a=b and b=c, then does not a=c?..] Or, does not the theorem hold that quantities equal to the same quantity equal to each other?
>
> -No, the use of an * does not change the meaning/definition of any word in any way as far as I can comprehend.
> -If it did change the meaning then yes, I do believe we'd have two words meaning two things.
> -Ummmm...OK.... heres where my retardation comes in w/ the "...if a=b and b=c, then does not a=c?..". I think I *might* possibly be able to figure that one out if you could clarify what the specific sentences "a" "b" and "c" are?
> -And yes (I think), quantities equal to the same quantity would be equal to each other.
> -I just cant figure out what all of those things put together mean.
>
> > Now let us suppose that someone wants to believe that one form of the word is offensive and the other form is not. I ask,in your opinions, would then one have to use their imaginiation as in a fantasy rather than reason to think that?
>
> Both forms of the word are still the same exact word... in order to believe one form of the word is offensive and the other is not youd have to:
> -Choose to believe one form of the word did in fact have a different meaning than the other.
> -Choose to believe that it had a different meaning despite the fact that there's no indication or evidence that it was intended to have a different meaning... and every indication that it was intended to have only one meaning.
> -For some reason just choose to believe one form was offensive and one wasnt without being able to conclude for yourself why that is.
> -Or some other reason(s) I couldnt even imagine what could be.
> So yes, Id say you would absolutely have to use imagination as in fantasy rather than reason to think that.
>
> >If so, could they or could they not be deluding themselves into thinking that one form of the word >is offensive and the other form with the asterisk is not offensive? If so, are delusions and/or >fantasies a sound mental-health practice?
>
> -Yes they could or could not be deluding themselves into thinking that. Are they? Id have to say yes, they are.
> -I dont believe deluding oneself into believing something is at all a sound/healthy mental health practice... and fantasies, as in this context of perhaps fantasizing that one form of a word is non offensive and one is, sounds a lot like deluding.
> But fantasizing in general about other things Im sure can be a perfectly sound MH practice.
>
>
> >The asterisk has a historical meaning from centuries ago concerning swearing in relation to commandments that some faiths have from their God to them that I would like to discuss by email, if you would like.
> - By "you" do you mean specifically me or anyone who would like? : )
>
> > Lou
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> >
Jeff,
You wrote,[...Lou..I understand what you..said...the use of * does not change the meaning/definition of any word in any way as far as I can comprehend...]. You wrote,[...in order to believe that one form of the word is offensive and the other is not (you would) have to:...]
I appreciate your well-thought-out list here including the {some other reason(s)}.
You wrote,[...I don't believe deluding oneself into believing something is at all a sound/healthy mental health practice...and fantasies...sounds like..deluding...]
Thank you for your reply. Lou's thirteenth smiley>>[:-)
You wrote,[...do you mean ..{me}...?]
I posted to the forum as {friends} and meant that anyone could email me. But this post is my reply to you although anyone can respond or email.
I would like for anyone to use the following link and click on {d} to see the psychiatric definitions for delusion and denial.
Lou
http://www.abess.com/glossary.html
>
>
Posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 12:52:34
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule, posted by Dr. Bob on January 6, 2007, at 4:57:08
> > lets assume that does horribly offend you. So what does that mean? What exactly happens to you after reading a word that horribly offends you? How are you harmed? Are you left so affected that you'd be unable to continue reading my post? Does being horribly offended mean that you cant go on to read any other post here? Does it make you never want to visit here again?
>
> Maybe it would leave her feeling it's not so supportive here?-Supportive of exactley what? Of her potential desire to not view certain censored words which are not directed to or about or dont have anything to do with her? If so then maybe it would or would not leave her feeling its not so supportive here. I dont know how she'd feel but it would certainly be her choice as to how to react to her feeling.
Maybe she would feel that just because certain people choose to use certain words doesnt mean that they dont support her here... they just simply choose to use certain words?
> > Lets pretend Im extremely upset with my mother and I want to come here ... and I just need to vent
>
> It can be therapeutic to express yourself, but this isn't necessarily the place.-I know. I was just giving one example to Nikki of how that word might have shown up on the board, not saying I would actually say something like that.
> > And why should any of that be left up to me to have to "worry" about?
> > Are you suggesting that I should stop myself, and all my thoughts, just to first think "Well so and so may be left to feel 'horribly offended' ... if I call my mother a b*tch, so I better first try to come up with a non-offensive term or discription to express how Im feeling about her instead of using that word"??
>
> It isn't left up to you, the asterisking is automatic. And you wouldn't have to stop yourself first, you'd just have to stop yourself sometime before clicking "confirm". :-)-You quoted (or included in the above portion of my post) me saying "And why should any of that be left up to me to have to "worry" about?" and then you replied by first saying "It isnt left up to you, the asterisking is automatic".
My question to Nikki (which contained the words 'left up to me') was in reference to how she would potentially be affected by reading a word and as to how that should be left up to me (or everyone else) to "worry" about.
I wasnt suggesting that it was "left up to me" to choose the rules or actual act of inserting an asterisk into a word, if thats what you were thinking I had implied?
-(but I dont think my automatic asterisking funtion is on because I dont get them automatically.)> > The "C" word offends you when written (and I assume also when its spoken). How do you feel about the "C" word if its written here in censored form, as in [xxx]?
>
> May I ask why you spelled out the censored form that time, instead of just saying "in censored form", as you did every other time?-You may. : )
-I was prepairing to ask Nikki a series of questions about how she feels about the censored version of the "C" word... I chose to spell out the censored version at that time in order for her to actually see the actual word so she could then have a true reaction to it and would therefore reply to my questions with her accurate feelings/opinions/replies and not have to instead just imagine or guess how she thinks she may have felt if she had seen the word.> > > but, where do you draw the line? Thats the problem.
> >
> > I agree. : ) And where do you draw the line?
>
> FYI, I've drawn the line at "often or usually disparaging, obscene, offensive, or vulgar":
>
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#civilI see.
> > No, it wouldnt really be at all difficult for me to just simply censor my words or not use them at all if it pleases other people... Im 100% for being kind and civil and compassionate towards each other...
>
> Great, it would please me, so I guess that's settled. :-)
>
> BobHey, not so fast. : )
You left out the ending of that where I said "but IMO censoring or ommitting certain words in order to prevent the possibility of certain people from becoming offended (by just reading them on a message board) is wrong to expect."
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 6, 2007, at 13:49:17
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » Dr. Bob, posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 12:52:34
Sorry to be briefer than you have been, but..
Um, I can only think of one 4 letter word that is also used for female gentalia. Thats "the c word".
Oh, actually, my husband just pointed another out! the "t" one *l* In my world, that word carried no where near the weight the other does.
Maybe you need to be female to understand why this is so offensive to many of us. Most would accept that this is about the strongest, most derogatory word there is. I, personally, do not like a part of my body that I rather like having being used in such a derogatory manner.
You ask if there is a difference with the asterixing.
I think so, yes. To me it implies that ~some~ effort has been gone to to reduce this offence. I'm not naive, or sheltered or anything like that, and obviously come across this word in my real life. But, this ~is~ a medium where the use of it can be fogged.. and asterixing doesn't hide thw word, or remove it, but it does make ~me~ feel like some effort has gone into preventing the use of this word.I don't know whether or not you were around during the original discussions about this issue.. but I seem to remember the asterixing actually being a compromise of some kind.. Which does happen here at times ;)
Nikki
Posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 14:24:55
In reply to Lou's reply to Jeff Smith » JeffSmith, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2007, at 12:42:32
> Jeff,
> You wrote,[...Lou..I understand what you..said...the use of * does not change >the.meaning/definition of any word in any way as far as I can comprehend...]. You wrote,[...in >order to believe that one form of the word is offensive and the other is not (you would) have >to:...]
> I appreciate your well-thought-out list here including the {some other reason(s)}.-Im glad you do, and thank you for saying it was well thought out.
> You wrote,[...I don't believe deluding oneself into believing something is at all a >sound/healthy mental health practice...and fantasies...sounds like..deluding...]
> Thank you for your reply. Lou's thirteenth smiley>>[:-)-Youre welcome... and why the smiley count (if I may ask)? Did my reply inspire #13 and if so I must be very special, right? (If not Ill still choose to believe so, so dont ruin my delusion please by saying otherwise).
> You wrote,[...do you mean ..{me}...?]
> I posted to the forum as {friends} and meant that anyone could email me. But this post is my >reply to you although anyone can respond or email.
> I would like for anyone to use the following link and click on {d} to see the psychiatric >definitions for delusion and denial.
> Lou
> http://www.abess.com/glossary.html-I see.
And I clicked your link, read the def. for delusion only to discover that this part is often me:
"The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.."
Great, so now I really am delusional on top of everything else. : (
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2007, at 15:00:27
In reply to Re: Lou's response to aspects of Jeff Smith's post » Lou Pilder, posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 11:15:40
>
> > > Friends,
> > It is written here,[...in this thread..illogical and ..to censor..words by replacing a..letter with an asterisk...word allowed here as long as the ..is replaced by an asterisk...Let's pretend...equally offended by the censored version as the non-censored version..fully aware of what the word is...].
> > There is the potential ,IMO, that this thread has at least the question as to if putting the asterisk in the word makes it any less offensive, to those that think the word is offensive, for some could think that words that are deemed offensive to some, could not be offensive to some others.
>
> Lou Im afraid to even attempt to reply to your post since I fear Im gonna come off looking like Im retarded... but Ill try. : )
> So, so far I believe I understand what you just said. And yes, I do believe some may think in that way.
>
> > If we look at that question, then does the use of an asterisk for one letter change the meaning of the word? If it does, then could we have two words meaning two things? If it does not change the meaning of the two forms of the word, then do we not have the theorem that[... if a=b and b=c, then does not a=c?..] Or, does not the theorem hold that quantities equal to the same quantity equal to each other?
>
> -No, the use of an * does not change the meaning/definition of any word in any way as far as I can comprehend.
> -If it did change the meaning then yes, I do believe we'd have two words meaning two things.
> -Ummmm...OK.... heres where my retardation comes in w/ the "...if a=b and b=c, then does not a=c?..". I think I *might* possibly be able to figure that one out if you could clarify what the specific sentences "a" "b" and "c" are?
> -And yes (I think), quantities equal to the same quantity would be equal to each other.
> -I just cant figure out what all of those things put together mean.
>
> > Now let us suppose that someone wants to believe that one form of the word is offensive and the other form is not. I ask,in your opinions, would then one have to use their imaginiation as in a fantasy rather than reason to think that?
>
> Both forms of the word are still the same exact word... in order to believe one form of the word is offensive and the other is not youd have to:
> -Choose to believe one form of the word did in fact have a different meaning than the other.
> -Choose to believe that it had a different meaning despite the fact that there's no indication or evidence that it was intended to have a different meaning... and every indication that it was intended to have only one meaning.
> -For some reason just choose to believe one form was offensive and one wasnt without being able to conclude for yourself why that is.
> -Or some other reason(s) I couldnt even imagine what could be.
> So yes, Id say you would absolutely have to use imagination as in fantasy rather than reason to think that.
>
> >If so, could they or could they not be deluding themselves into thinking that one form of the word >is offensive and the other form with the asterisk is not offensive? If so, are delusions and/or >fantasies a sound mental-health practice?
>
> -Yes they could or could not be deluding themselves into thinking that. Are they? Id have to say yes, they are.
> -I dont believe deluding oneself into believing something is at all a sound/healthy mental health practice... and fantasies, as in this context of perhaps fantasizing that one form of a word is non offensive and one is, sounds a lot like deluding.
> But fantasizing in general about other things Im sure can be a perfectly sound MH practice.
>
>
> >The asterisk has a historical meaning from centuries ago concerning swearing in relation to commandments that some faiths have from their God to them that I would like to discuss by email, if you would like.
> - By "you" do you mean specifically me or anyone who would like? : )
>
> > Lou
> > lpilder_1188@fuse.net
> >
>Friends,
One of the overiding questions here is if the use of an asterisk in a word that is deemed offensive here, makes the word a non-offensive word and thearfore acceptable here to be posted without sanction, whearas the same word without the asterisk is unacceptable and sanctioned. This also involves whether a member that has the word directed to them, or I guess just reads it, is offended by the word if it is asterisked.
Some people could , I guess , not be offended by a word that is considered to be offensive here and some then could be offended. Some could not be offended by an asterisked word, but I could be offended by an offensive word even if it is asterisked.
If someone used either directed to me or not an antisemitic epithet or any ethnic epithet be it asterisked or not, I would be offended. If someone used the word that is generally offensive to women, I would be offended bethe word asterisked or not. If someone used any offensive word here, I would be offended be it asterisked or not. This is because I think that if someone would not want to use the offending word, that they would not then use it .
Here is what another mental-health forum says about the use of asterisks in words that are offensive:
[...Profanity of any nature is not allowed...You may not use acronyms or >asterisks<, for using those in a word does not make it any less offensive. Niether does replacing the leter A with @, or the letter S with $. This is because >if you say the profanity {in your mind} when you read the post, then it is as if you used the profanity. So even ,#@%! could be considered to be profanity<...].
If someone posted here either to me or not, an offensive word with an asterisk,let's say a word that demeans a class of people or a racist word or an antisemitic word , or any word that puts down any peoples,I still see that the word. I ask: Was the word concieved in the mind of the member that posted the offensive word with the asterisk and then the built-in filter inserted the asterisk? If so, do I have any rationale to think that it is any less offensive to me with the asterisk? And even so, is not less offensive still offensive? And if someone was trying to not be offensive, could they just not post the offensive word at all?
If anyone would like to link to the forum that I cited, you could email me if you like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2007, at 15:08:53
In reply to Re: Lou's reply to Jeff Smith » Lou Pilder, posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 14:24:55
>
> > Jeff,
> > You wrote,[...Lou..I understand what you..said...the use of * does not change >the.meaning/definition of any word in any way as far as I can comprehend...]. You wrote,[...in >order to believe that one form of the word is offensive and the other is not (you would) have >to:...]
> > I appreciate your well-thought-out list here including the {some other reason(s)}.
>
> -Im glad you do, and thank you for saying it was well thought out.
>
> > You wrote,[...I don't believe deluding oneself into believing something is at all a >sound/healthy mental health practice...and fantasies...sounds like..deluding...]
> > Thank you for your reply. Lou's thirteenth smiley>>[:-)
>
> -Youre welcome... and why the smiley count (if I may ask)? Did my reply inspire #13 and if so I must be very special, right? (If not Ill still choose to believe so, so dont ruin my delusion please by saying otherwise).
>
> > You wrote,[...do you mean ..{me}...?]
> > I posted to the forum as {friends} and meant that anyone could email me. But this post is my >reply to you although anyone can respond or email.
> > I would like for anyone to use the following link and click on {d} to see the psychiatric >definitions for delusion and denial.
> > Lou
> > http://www.abess.com/glossary.html
>
> -I see.
> And I clicked your link, read the def. for delusion only to discover that this part is often me:
> "The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.."
> Great, so now I really am delusional on top of everything else. : (
>
>
Jeff,
You wrote,[...The beliefe is not one ordinarilly accepted...so now I am really delusional..]
Do you not think that the grammatical structure of the definition was {rulling out} that case?
Lou
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2007, at 16:14:14
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » JeffSmith, posted by 10derHeart on January 4, 2007, at 18:45:39
> They don't make things worse for me. I like them. I think they help maintain a little bit of a kinder, gentler, more civilized community, as a whole, here.
>
> And this is from someone who spent 22+ years in the military and can keep up in a swearing contest with most anyone. But...there's are times and places to choose to temper that (eg, use of asterisks), or not to speak that way at all. It seems nice to me for Babble to be one of those places.
>
> Vulgarities have their purpose, perhaps, and can be an effective way to express very strong feelings. But OTOH, that sort of language also may upset folks and make for a harsher way of communicating overall. And harsh can become stressful, confusing, even hurtful sometimes.
>
> The asterisks seem like a pretty good compromise, something that is hard to come by here at times, and so is a valuable thing to hang on to.
>
> Just my few cents worth :-)
Friends,
One of the aspects in this discussion is if the offensive words should be allowed at all, even with the asterisks. It is written here,[...if we keep the words, keep the asterisks...not made worse...].
Psychologists have written many volumes about how profanity could be damaging to the one that uses the words, and the recipiants of the words. The use of offensive words that children can read is criminal in some jurisdictions. Profanity is often used by directing the words to those opressed by others for reasons that you can find in the psychologist's writings or email me if you like for those.
It is my deep conviction that a child and adults could be damaged just as much by reading here an offensive word even if there is an asterisk in it and you could email me if you like for my perspective,
It is written here,[..vulgarities have their purpose...can be an >effective< way to express very strong feelings..OTOH..hurtfull...]. Those interested in my response to that statement can email me if they like.
It is written here,[...the asterisks seem like a ..good compromise..a valuable thing...]. Those interested in my response to that could email me if they like.
Lou
lpilder_1188@fuse.net
Posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 18:20:37
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » JeffSmith, posted by NikkiT2 on January 6, 2007, at 13:49:17
> Um, I can only think of one 4 letter word that is also used for female gentalia. Thats "the c word".-Well I dont mean to unnecessarily keep up this part of the conversation, but let me just say that theres that and theres also the "P" word... as in also used before the word cat.
> Oh, actually, my husband just pointed another out! the "t" one *l* In my world, that word carried no where near the weight the other does.
-I believe you mean "t" as in a 3 letter word?
But whats the *1* for after the "one"? Just curious...> Maybe you need to be female to understand why this is so offensive to many of us. Most would accept that this is about the strongest, most derogatory word there is. I, personally, do not like a part of my body that I rather like having being used in such a derogatory manner.
-Just so you know- I dont advocate going around calling people names and I wouldnt ever have used the example sentence (My mother is a real "C") because I would actually rather take the time and think of all the other ways I could verbally disparage her. ; )
I was just using the c word in that mother example to ask you about how you feel about seeing the word when not directed at you.
I realize most people find that particular word particularly offensive.
Me? I think it all depends upon your intention. You could either call some one a "C" and have it probably mean that you find that person to be b*tchy or obnoxious etc, which would obviously be intended to be offensive. Or if your very familiar/close w/ someone (male/female..whoever) you might jokingly say to them "That was a c***y thing to say" (non offensive). You *could* even say that in a non joking way and still not mean it in a heinous, vile, hateful way.
Or you could use it to describe the female anatomy as an inappropriate lewd comment to someone (offensive). Or maybe use it during respectful sex talk/play (non offensive).
I guess it could range anywhere from extremely derogatory/offensive to completely innocuous.
So Im just not offended by the actual words or seeing them... I have to know what the intention behind them is first.Ive babbled again...
Yes, : ) I realize you still dont like the word (youre positive I havent convinced you of otherwise!?!). I dont *need* to use it here and Im sure I can manage very nicely to never use it...
I would just like to have the option of being "allowed" to use it, and all words.> You ask if there is a difference with the asterixing.
> I think so, yes. To me it implies that ~some~ effort has been gone to to reduce this offence. >I'm not naive, or sheltered or anything like that, and obviously come across this word in my real >life. But, this ~is~ a medium where the use of it can be fogged.. and asterixing doesn't hide >thw word, or remove it, but it does make ~me~ feel like some effort has gone into preventing the >use of this word.-I see and agree with some of what youre saying.
To use the * is definitely acknowledging the fact that youre offended by the word(s). It says that "even though Im still using this word Ill use the * as a way of "appeasing" others who are offended by it". And thats obviously a nice thing... to not want to offend others and to compromise by simply using the *. And I understand the fact that you want people to recognize your feeling about the word(s) and that you appreciate that theyre willing to do *something* to show you that recognition, by using the *.
I dont get the impression, though, that anyone uses the * as a way of making an effort to prevent the use of the word. IMO when someone writes a word using an * they do so with the intention of writing that specific word. When that word is written the intention is for others to understand the word and the words meaning. The * is not meant to disguise the words meaning its just meant to disguise part of the words appearance... like a bad toupee. You can disguise part of the words appearance but never the less the word is still being written/used and understood for what it is and means.
So if the word is still being used with the * then an effort has gone into partially disguising the words appearance, but no effort has gone into preventing the actual use of the word. And thats still a nice gesture.> I don't know whether or not you were around during the original discussions about this issue.. >but I seem to remember the asterixing actually being a compromise of some kind.. Which does >happen here at times ;)
>
> Nikki- No, Im very new here so I didnt see that.
Posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 19:45:27
In reply to Lou's reply to Jeff Smith-ordaccpt » JeffSmith, posted by Lou Pilder on January 6, 2007, at 15:08:53
> > And I clicked your link, read the def. for delusion only to discover that this part is often me:
> > "The belief is not one ordinarily accepted by other members of the person's culture or subculture.."
> > Great, so now I really am delusional on top of everything else. : (
> >
> >
> Jeff,
> You wrote,[...The belief is not one ordinarilly accepted...so now I am really delusional..]
> Do you not think that the grammatical structure of the definition was {rulling out} that case?
> Lou
>Its true that I often have beliefs/opinions that are not ordinarily accepted/agreed with by much or most of society but to answer your question no, I do think that Im ruled out as delusional...
What we had there was just my lame attempt at being humorous by claiming I thought I was now officially delusional in addition to my other mental problems.
Im generally so not funny... and I hate that.
Posted by Lou Pilder on January 7, 2007, at 6:49:32
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » NikkiT2, posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 18:20:37
>
> > Um, I can only think of one 4 letter word that is also used for female gentalia. Thats "the c word".
>
> -Well I dont mean to unnecessarily keep up this part of the conversation, but let me just say that theres that and theres also the "P" word... as in also used before the word cat.
>
> > Oh, actually, my husband just pointed another out! the "t" one *l* In my world, that word carried no where near the weight the other does.
>
> -I believe you mean "t" as in a 3 letter word?
> But whats the *1* for after the "one"? Just curious...
>
> > Maybe you need to be female to understand why this is so offensive to many of us. Most would accept that this is about the strongest, most derogatory word there is. I, personally, do not like a part of my body that I rather like having being used in such a derogatory manner.
>
> -Just so you know- I dont advocate going around calling people names and I wouldnt ever have used the example sentence (My mother is a real "C") because I would actually rather take the time and think of all the other ways I could verbally disparage her. ; )
> I was just using the c word in that mother example to ask you about how you feel about seeing the word when not directed at you.
> I realize most people find that particular word particularly offensive.
> Me? I think it all depends upon your intention. You could either call some one a "C" and have it probably mean that you find that person to be b*tchy or obnoxious etc, which would obviously be intended to be offensive. Or if your very familiar/close w/ someone (male/female..whoever) you might jokingly say to them "That was a c***y thing to say" (non offensive). You *could* even say that in a non joking way and still not mean it in a heinous, vile, hateful way.
> Or you could use it to describe the female anatomy as an inappropriate lewd comment to someone (offensive). Or maybe use it during respectful sex talk/play (non offensive).
> I guess it could range anywhere from extremely derogatory/offensive to completely innocuous.
> So Im just not offended by the actual words or seeing them... I have to know what the intention behind them is first.
>
> Ive babbled again...
> Yes, : ) I realize you still dont like the word (youre positive I havent convinced you of otherwise!?!). I dont *need* to use it here and Im sure I can manage very nicely to never use it...
> I would just like to have the option of being "allowed" to use it, and all words.
>
> > You ask if there is a difference with the asterixing.
> > I think so, yes. To me it implies that ~some~ effort has been gone to to reduce this offence. >I'm not naive, or sheltered or anything like that, and obviously come across this word in my real >life. But, this ~is~ a medium where the use of it can be fogged.. and asterixing doesn't hide >thw word, or remove it, but it does make ~me~ feel like some effort has gone into preventing the >use of this word.
>
> -I see and agree with some of what youre saying.
> To use the * is definitely acknowledging the fact that youre offended by the word(s). It says that "even though Im still using this word Ill use the * as a way of "appeasing" others who are offended by it". And thats obviously a nice thing... to not want to offend others and to compromise by simply using the *. And I understand the fact that you want people to recognize your feeling about the word(s) and that you appreciate that theyre willing to do *something* to show you that recognition, by using the *.
> I dont get the impression, though, that anyone uses the * as a way of making an effort to prevent the use of the word. IMO when someone writes a word using an * they do so with the intention of writing that specific word. When that word is written the intention is for others to understand the word and the words meaning. The * is not meant to disguise the words meaning its just meant to disguise part of the words appearance... like a bad toupee. You can disguise part of the words appearance but never the less the word is still being written/used and understood for what it is and means.
> So if the word is still being used with the * then an effort has gone into partially disguising the words appearance, but no effort has gone into preventing the actual use of the word. And thats still a nice gesture.
>
> > I don't know whether or not you were around during the original discussions about this issue.. >but I seem to remember the asterixing actually being a compromise of some kind.. Which does >happen here at times ;)
> >
> > Nikki
>
> - No, Im very new here so I didnt see that.
>
> Friends,
It is written here,[...if the star is used, there is an effort to partially disguise the appearance of the word but no effort has gone into preventing the actual use of the word...]
I would like to add to this discussion a post by Dinah that IMO could improve the clarification about this aspect of the discussion.
Lou
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20061228/msgs/717354.html
>
Posted by NikkiT2 on January 7, 2007, at 8:03:55
In reply to Re: The No Offensive Language Rule » NikkiT2, posted by JeffSmith on January 6, 2007, at 18:20:37
ah, but the cat one has 5 letters ;)
I think, maybe, the T one I was thinking of is a british thing.. possibly.. and is actually my favourite put down *l* (the t is followed by a w... hmm)
Oh, and *l* means "laughing".. *lol* - "laughing out loud".. I think I'm a bit old school with my on line signifiers of emotion / action
I can' explain why, with that one word, I do find the one little asterix makes it easier to handle.. And, while I do appreciate that you could happily control yourself not to use it, unfortunately, histry shows, that not everyone would have that level of self control.
I simply do not like the use of it. Like I said, maybe you do have to own one as it were to understand quite how degrading it can be. Oh, its use in other ways is fine, and I have been known to rather like its use at certain times *grins*.. but its when it used in a way designed to cause offence, designed to be derogatory and nasty that I don't like it..
Ach, I'm not explaining myself well. But, that one little asterix ~does~ make a difference for ~me~ in the case of that one word. It truly is the only word that offends me.. and I think its because I don't like that part of me being used in ~such~ a derogatory way.
Nikki
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.