That bugs me, too. Why should someone apologize because they have an adequate vocabulary and don’t have to resort to useless filler words?
I completely agree with you, but we don’t have a hope in hell of getting this reversed. Most people seem to be of the belief that “if you ignore them, they’ll go away.” Horse shit. First of all, they aren’t going to get ignored, they’re going to get responded to, because as fluid as the population here is, there will always be a few people who don’t know the troll is being a troll. And second, not all trolls take the hint of being ignored. They figure that’s just a sign they need to up the voltage. What’s worse, there are a few that are very good at skating that oh-so-fine line. They’ve been doing it for years, so not only do they know just how far they can go. Okay, personal rant over.
That bugs me, too. Why should someone apologize because they have an adequate vocabulary and don’t have to resort to useless filler words?
Because sometimes- quite often, in fact- we find ourselves in situations where “Gosh Darn It”, “Blast”, and even the Hydrogen Bomb Of Pseudo Swear-Words, “Smeg” (People cover their children’s ears, and a woman in the front row faints at the horror ) do not adequately convey the sense of frustration, annoyance, outrage, and even anger, generated by a particular event, happening, or situation.
Sure, we can get all British about it (“I say, old chap, I appear to have accidentally nailed my hand to this piece of joinery. I don’t suppose I could trouble you to assist me in removing the nail and perhaps summoning an ambulance, whilst I try and stop the blood from getting all over Mrs. Miggin’s lovely new sofa, could I?”), but I doubt most of us could muster up that sort of decorum in such a situation.
Conversely, the Australian approach (“Kylie! I’ve nailed my hand to the wall again. Bring the pliers and a sticky plaster, would you? And put the kettle on while you’re in there!”) might be a little too laid back for many people, as well as failing to adequately convey the urgency and annoyance of the fact that, once again, this individual has suffered a carpentry mishap and is even now attached to the wall, and that medical assistance will inevitably be required at some point in the very near future- as well as some carpet cleaner, for that matter.
That leaves us with our good friends, Swear Words. In the above scenario (Carpentry Mishap), the best and most concise way to communicate the predicament one has found oneself in would be thus:
"FUCK! I’VE JUST NAILED MY FUCKING HAND TO THE FUCKING WALL! OUCH! OUCH! FUCK THAT HURTS! FOR FUCK’S SAKE, HELP ME OUT HERE!"
And that is why Swear Words are useful, not just in everyday usage, but also in the Pit. Next week, we’ll be discussing Notable Use Of Swear Words in History, ranging from King Harold of Wessex (“Where the fuck did that Arrow come from???”) to General Custer (“Where the fuck did all those Indians come from???”) to the Captain Of The Titanic (“What the fuck was that iceberg doing there???”), as well as the Mayor of Hiroshima (“What the fuck was that???”), and many more… 
Most concise? Hardly. Just take all of the “fucks” out of your sentences and they retain their meaning and become more concise. And for that first sentence, I’ve found a long, loud, incoherent scream works wonders at getting people to come and see what’s the matter. If obscenity is the only way you have to lend emphasis, you just need to work on your vocabulary and your ability to put words together.
But that’s not the point.
The point is that people are actually apologizing for not swearing in their Pit postings. People are adding random obscenity just because it’s the pit (e.g., “This is the pit? Oh, then shit shit shit.”). This is silly and pointless. Just because you can swear in the Pit doesn’t mean you are obligated to.
Exactly. Hey, swear all you want, I don’t care, but don’t just do it because you have the strange idea that it’s required.
Discussing the ignore list: Currently it is not a sensible rule. I can imagine a number of ways where it might be a convenience or a courtesy all round to mention X or Y is on your ignore list.
Why not have a rule: ‘Don’t use your ignore list as a weapon against other posters, examples include …’ or; ‘Don’t mention who is on your ignore list, except to clear up a misunderstanding’?
I don’t think anyone is under the impression that it’s required. They’re making a joke - one that’s gotten a bit old.
Some people, yes, but I’m pretty confident that a lot of the comments I’ve seen were sincere. It doesn’t just happen in the pit - I’ve seen pitworthy MPSIMS posts in the past that said “Well, I would have put this in the pit, but there isn’t any swearing”. I don’t mean to say that all of them think it’s actually a hard and fast rule that one swears, just that people seem to think that if you don’t swear, it’s not pitworthy.
For that matter, I wish some people would realize that, AFAIK, swearing outside of the pit is not exactly verboten, either.
It seems odd that only racist hate speech is being singled out, what about other kinds (sexist/homophobic/et al)?
Yeah, I mean what if someone called someone else a “fundie”?
From the rules thread:
I disagree. Quote *marks * and quote tags essentially serve the same purpose: they display another poster’s *exact * wording. That’s kinda what quotation marks are for. If we need a rule for quote tags, the same rule should apply to quote marks.
Paraphrasing another’s argument should be done *without * either quotation marks or attributed quote tags, as God intended it.
No :eek:
Using " " is has been a way of showing we are only paraphrasing and it is not necessarily our words or opinion. Why take that away? The Quote Code or button is suppose to be undoctored, the “Quote Marks” leave us a chance for a little humor/lampooning.
“Lampooning another’s argument should be done with quotation marks, as Og intended it.”
Jim
There’s a reason they’re called “quotation” marks. A paraphrase is not a quotation.
A question about tampering with quotes:
I understand about changing a quote’s meaning, and about indicating snips. However, what about correcting typos? If somebody has a minor “misspellnig,” can I fix it in the quote box without comment? I don’t want to embarrass somebody over a dinky detail, when I’m working up to calling him a sebacious slagbagger.
If we’re following the rules for quotation marks (journalistic and academic rules), then you don’t muck with the quote at all, with the stated exceptions (highlighting, adding footnote references, snips, adding [sic]), and those exceptions need to be documented appropriately.
That means no correcting of errors, even if you don’t think it changes the meaning.
Sorry, but I cannot accept this post as a valid cite for 'we’re not stupid". Please try again, and also reduce the volume on your PC’s speakers as that woooshing sound must have disturbed you line of thought.
I completely agree with you here - I don’t understand why this is allowed. We discussed it awhile back, though, and this is the same as the previous decision. There are uses of quotation marks - in very informal writing, at least - that do match up with this - like the following.
That’s the sort of usage in question, I think, and no one mistakes it as an actual quote. I’m not sure how that ever became an ordinary way of writing, but it’s something I’ve certainly seen plenty of. I would rather it wasn’t allowed, because I think quote marks are generally treated as reasonably sacrosanct in most media and I don’t understand why we want to invite trouble by treating them differently here, but the administrators didn’t agree.
IMHO, if you want to do something like that, you should use square brackets; I don’t see the need in the first place, though. We’re all used to seeing typos and misspellings and whatnot, since we can’t edit our posts. It’s not like it won’t be seen when people read the original post, after all. Again, I’m on the side of treating quotes carefully. I don’t see the value in deciding to clean up another person’s grammar and spelling - you can’t fix the original post while you’re at it, and we’re all (theoretically) capable of acting like adults and not making a big deal out of that kind of thing.
I asked if it was a stupid joke at the end, so it’s not as though it went entirely over my head.
I guess it didn’t seem like a good joke, or even an adequate one, so I didn’t see that as the most plausible explanation for what you posted. But the thought obviously entered my mind, as I mentioned it in the last line. Did you miss it while reading my post?
No, don’t correct people’s typos. What a poster wrote is what they wrote, for better or for worse, and that’s what should be quoted. No revisionist history allowed.