Meh.
Fucko off.
(And what’s the bet that Lynn or Arnold finally claims the sticky when they lock the thread? :))
All I know now is my cat’s breath reeks of coolosity…
This is the necessary link that may, or may not, make the last few posts understandable.
The point is, Wikkit must not be permitted to have the last say in this thread. 
NOOO!!! DOn’t click on that link!!! it’s eeeeeevil!!!
Calm down, BrightEyes. Take the Ritalin.
here’s my non sequitur def #2 in response to the last post:
The Brontosaurus was large and placcid.
Jesus would buy that for a dollar.
In response to this thread being locked:
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=157476
why the need for the moral censorship here? i can understand the need for a line to be drawn - for example if someone was posting racist propoganda - but why is vulgar language an unfit topic of discussion? if this censorship was applied consistently, half the threads on this forum should be removed, and at least the title of my thread gave fair warning it was going to contain some “bad” language. i see that another thread has the words 'f***g ct in the subject line - so why is that one still open?
Much love,
Ki42
It is not.
Discussion of vulgarity is appropriate in this Forum (or in GD or even in GQ if it is from a linguistic or sociological perspective).
Use of vulgarity is appropriate to this Forum when applied as an act of anger (although it may be checked if it gets excessive–a subjective assessment you’ll simply have to live with).
However, the thread in question had devolved (almost immediately) into simply a “cuss fest” with posters doing nothing more than throwing around scatological and obscene words in an attempt to be humorous. Only a couple of the posts were actually funny and none of them actually engaged in blowing off steam or condemning some cretin who needed excoriation. Hence, Lynn’s mention of the gratuitous nature of the words (and the thread).
YMMV (but Lynn’s won’t).
**
the discussion was about usage of language… and even tho the story was about a homeless person, the incident took place in something akin to a society, between people from differing social classes, in a complex sociological environment! how much more ‘sociological perspective’ do you need? the thread could have gone in any number of directions, its purpose was trying to provoke a discussion about inventive use of [bad] language.
**
ok, so you say swearing is acceptable when you are experiencing one particular emotion - anger. its a very odd argument that its only ok to actually (good gosh no!) swear when you are in a non rational state. these limits on language seem not only arbitrary, but perverse to those of us who see [bad] words as useful and effective tools of communication - last time i checked it wasnt compulsary to find such language offensive, and as i pointed out the subject line of the thread gave fair warning it would contain swear words!
your views on the humour, or lack of it, in the thread are fair enough. thats cos humour is a very personal thing - however you may have noticed that some of the funniest comedians dont always use puritanical language… and they also manage to discuss very serious things in a way that people can relate to and find interesting, in a way that academic type discussions never will (check richard pryor or eddie murphy). why is a debate more worthy if it is conducted using words most people cant understand? in my experience people resort to such words because to state their message in simple language would expose its flaws. i believe a discussion prompted by humour can be just as worthy, thought provoking and most importantly interesting as one prompted by anger (or whatever other emotions that are allowed in this weird environment).
maybe you can answer why ‘gratuitous’ anger and bad language is ok, while ‘gratuitous’ humour and bad language is not. mmmkay, anger has more of a purpose than humour? personally, id rather discuss swearing (which believe it or not has many functions including expressing anger AND humour) in a humourus way, than an angry way. while im at it, maybe i should point out to you another amazing concept: that humour can be an even more effective way of ‘letting off steam’ than anger!?!?!
to summarise: you are chatting bare fraff. (you probably have as much understanding of that as i do the cryptic code YMMV)
peace and love,
Ki42
YMMV = Your Mileage May Vary
It’s a fairly widely used abbreviation on the net and on this MB.
Despite your lengthy discourse, here, there was no discussion regarding the language used. It was an anecdote that prompted some banter, but it was not a discussion. (It was also rather pointless, as the OP simply used one word multiple times as a verb, adjective, adverb, and noun. We’ve seen it before with any number of words.)
I have expressed no opinon regarding the quality of a debate in terms of the language used. I only pointed out that your thread was not, in fact, either a debate or a discussion.
I have no idea why you are going off on “words that most people don’t understand.” Where have you seen any such discussion, here? Are you attempting a red herring or a strawman? (Meanings provided upon request.)
I have no need to defend an assertion I have never made. There is plenty of humor–vulgar, obscene, scatological, profane, and just icky–in the Pit. My observation was simply that the thread, as it developed, was neither a discussion nor particularly humorous. (As posted, the OP may have been an attempt to bring forth one or the other; it just didn’t happen.)
Better luck next time.
Thank you, Tom. Precisely. I don’t want any “cuss fests” taking place in the Pit, because, as I said in the locked thread, there’s plenty of places online where you can type in “dirty” words all you want. The Straight Dope isn’t one of them.
if the thread had been closed for not being funny, i wouldnt have a problem. it never really had the chance to get funny. it was closed because ‘this forum is not the place for gratuitous vulgarity’. you clarified for me that use, as opposed to discussion of bad language is fine (as long as you are angry). unlike you i dont see those two as being mutually exclusive - its not easy to discuss words without using them.
you then argued that, because the thread had ‘degenerated’ into nothing more than banter and ‘attempts to be humourus’, it was no longer a discussion. i can see no reason for this. in order for the banter to cease becoming a conversation, any humourous remarks made as part of the banter must therefore be meaningless. contrary to this, angry statements dont seem to be liable - so i was responding to this pro-angry and anti-jokey bias.
- this forum is utter bullshit:mad:
^ i can say that, anger is a legitimate form of expression so there was a clear purpose to that statement.
- this forum is utter bullshit:D
^ i can’t say that, no meaning can be expressed through humour - BAN THIS GRATUITOUS OUTRAGE QUICK!!!
- this forum is utter bullshit
^ insert speculation here
Lynn, you forgot “Don’t be a jerk.” Some of us need reminders
OK, im going to shut up now before people take offense. but its really quite funny to say that this forum is not the place to type ‘dirty’ words, seeing as half the threads listed below this one at any given time have the word ‘fuck’ in the title. :rolleyes:
and i sincerely i promise you i was not trying to instigate a ‘cuss-fest’ (even tho it sounds like lots of fun, thats one of the cutest americanisms ive heard for a while).
How many posts do you need? If Fenris launches a rant, it is funny from the first post. Simply inserting a vulgar word in place of multiple parts of speech throughout a passage has been done to death by other people for years. Repeating it with a different word does not make it funny.
You further reduced your own credibility by claiming that the speaker was using “creative” swearing. Boring and repetitive are not good adjectives to identify “creative.”
But that is not what Lynn said. She simply noted that this was not the place for gratuitous vulgarity. (Is this one of the big words you did not understand? It means, in this context, used simply for the sake of using it.) We appreciate truly creative cussing, but yours was not (in the opinion of the Moderator, whose word is Law) creative, despite your rather odd claim that there was something creative in mindlessly substituting the words fucker and cunt for various actual epithets or verbs.)
(If you want to see something moderately creative in the same vein as you attempted, check out Les Lucid’s Rant on the Coast Guard. The author invests some actual creativity in his opus.)
In contrast, your points 1, 2, and 3, above, did demonstrate a bit of (somewhat weak) creativity. (It would have been less weak if you had not demonstrated rather clearly that you have not grasped the actual point that Lynn had made.)
Welcome to the Straight Dope and have a nice time.
hmm, someone with 8600 posts implying im posting too much. im bored of you already.
laters…
I have not implied any such thing. However, I will now state (not imply) that your reading comprehension is inadequate and your imagination (while flawed) is overworked.
when you posted ‘how many posts do you need?’, i interpreted it as ‘you are posting too much [insert appropriate term here]’. if only i had your level of reading comprehension, i could have avoided reading between the lines.
and if only i had your arrogance, i would see that what i write could only ever be interpreted the way i intended it to.