Seems like the problem is not the language but the “splainin and defendin” because the boss saw the language.
Here’s an idea - don’t show off the SDMB to your boss. All he needs to know is, you are using the net for work related research. You know how the SDMB is, you know how your boss is, if the two won’t mix then why mix them?
Current possibilities include…
Comments on Staff Reports - **Decapitation experiments **
General Questions - **Is The Human Penis Designed To Scrape Other Men’s Semen Out Of The Vagina? **
Great Debates - Gay sex and eating a lobster
Cafe Society - **South Park and Hilarys butt **
In My Humble Opinion - **Dopers with Clitoral Piercings **
MPSIMS - Shuddering Tales Of Vomit
The BBQ Pit - **Reference books exist,… **
My set-up is similar to Cervaise’s in that it shows thread titles down to about IMHO, MPSIMS at most.
Err… make that Ethilrist’s…
Yes…we must definitely perview. :rolleyes:
The thread title was on the main page…that’s why I slipped on in here with y’all bunch of lovers! I share the OP’s concern.
I’m laughing out loud at *some * of the absolutely ridiculous typos in the previous posts and, whether founded or not, have made my own judgements about the strength of logic inherent in them as a result of these otherwise minor (well OK, glaring) structural errors.
I like the idea of bookmarking a normally work-safe forum. It’s a good one and probably the only realistic solution given the maniacal defense of individualism which is usually spewed by the chronically obscene in support of their determination to refuse to be polite at any cost.
Prohibiting posters from enfucking their thread titles is no more a threat to self-expresion that outlawing fully automatic assault rifles threatens American gun ownership. But since I think it’s unlikely the OP’s wish will be granted by The Mods, I would call instead for being clever with the cursing–I am *still * very fond of “coprophagic” and its accociated grammatical structures.
Like **RTA[/] suggetsed, I simply refuse to let the boss know about the board. I let the boss think I’m a wealth of information. It’s better for everyone that way.
That’s what I tell my boss too.
Yes…we must definitely perview. :rolleyes:
Demonizing those with opposing opinions. Remind me how that makes you the “polite” one in this discussion?
Enjoy,
Steven
scribbles down “enfucking” on mental notepad
You forgot “fat” and “retard”. 
See, here, Inigo Montoya, you jackmule. I’ll have you know, motherhugger, I’m polite to a fault. So you can take your holier-than-thou attitute and shove it right up your virgin masshole.
I’ve got your chronically obscene right here, witch.
Demonizing? I would think demons go beyond maniacal & chronically obscene. Perhaps vilifying is what you mean?
-Jeers,
I.M.
[size=1]Bolding mine.**
Farking bastich, don’t any of you people perview?
: giggling uncontollably :
Heh, heh, heh.
It was an intentional, gentle, almost delicate use of irony.
(rereads)
Yeah, that’s it.
I kind of like lissener’s idea, myself. It’d be nice if we could keep our cursing in the threads and out of the thread titles. Shit, what do I know?
Take your pick. Then go ahead and answer the question as to how one can vilify or demonize and still hold the moral high ground.
Or you could go ahead and prove your assertion that those opposed to lissener’s suggestion are “chronically obscene” or “determined to refuse to be polite at any cost”.
Enjoy,
Steven
I piiiiiiiick … … vilify. And doing so certainly does not make me polite.
And while I can understand your unstated acusation of hypocrisy on my part, allow me to point out that I never claimed to hold any “moral high ground”–nor for that matter that I was “holier than” anyone.
I was merely making belligerent statements about grammatical abuses & abusers and voicing an opinion regarding my frustration with individuals who reject social convention (we ALL know many of the words are considered “naughty” by society at large) simply because they have the right to do so, even if it means making others uncomfortable. And I inflated the language a bit.
Buy that? Or do I have to apologize?
Are you, or are you not, arguing that implementing lissner’s suggestion would be better than the status quo? Because if you are then you are then you must be acting from some sense of your vision being superior to that of others. A place where we politely vilify others. Where we call someone a “coporophagic bottom-feeder” instead of a “shit-eating fuckwit” and the previous construct is somehow better than the latter. I maintain this is a distinction without a difference and as such we may as well go ahead and err on the side of freedom of expression.
Don’t really buy it, no. But no apology is necessary. A simple acknowledgement that there may be defenders of the right to use “naughty” words who are not themselves some sort of antisocial coporaphagic bottom-feeders. That would do nicely.
Enjoy,
Steven
You didn’t really expect this to work, did you lissener? Aside from the inherent impossibility of getting Dopers to agree on anything, there’s still going to be a substantial percentage of posters who never open this thread, or never even see it in the first place, or who read it but forget all about it in a week or two. And they’ll all continue to post Pit threads with “assmuncher” in the title. Really, the only people who are going to read this, remember it, and honor the request contained within are probably people who aren’t predisposed to a lot of gratuitous swearing in the first place.
I have to add that I faintly resent the idea of having to censor myself, even to the extremely modest extent of monitoring my thread titles, because someone else has an uptight boss. I don’t post to the SDMB from work, the SDMB isn’t a work-realted site, I don’t really like the idea of altering the SDMB so that a vanishingly small minority of the board can show it off to their employers. If you really, really want your boss to know about the SDMB, let him see it warts and all. If he can’t handle the strong language, then maybe you should keep the boards your little secret.