It’s funny how this happens…
If it makes you happier, I can start handing out warnings for it instead.
Is it permissible for someone to start a thread implying you’re a child molestor?
I’m not the kind of person who likes stress and want polite and reasonable debate. But this makes me not want to come here.
I have twice overcome a loss of desire to come here over how rude people are if you don’t agree with them, but this one really sucks.
Well, yes; the rule clearly has little to no rational basis, so it’s not like anyone is going to convince anyone to change the rules. So there’s not much point to posting about it here since there’ll be no effect.
I’m sorry, but this is a fantastically useless comment–there is almost never any reason, if you’re in possession of inside information you cannot share, to drag out a statement that boils down to “No, guys, it’s not what you think. I can’t tell you what it is, but (implied) trust me it’s cool.”
As I have already said in the post you quoted, you can do whatever you want, whatever keeps you happy. Ban them, give them lollipops, whatever you want to do.
Nothing will change the fact that the rule is a stupid rule, out of place on a board that is supposedly for adults.
I said no comment. That does not mean “trust me it’s cool.” It means no comment. Again, I was telling Fenris, the only person who matters with respect to that statement as I was quoting him, why I was not addressing his point.
I cannot believe I’m being taken to task over such incredibly trivial things. It’s so bizarre and disproportionate that it really makes one wonder.
With all due respect, no one asked you about it. If you elect yourself spokesperson for something, don’t be surprised when you come under fire for it.
I think it would be entertaining if Ed banned the use of the phrase “super-duper poopypants” in The BBQ Pit, just to see the threads in this forum from posters insisting that they just can’t talk like adults unless they are allowed to use that particular phrase. There would of course be many posts in which that phrase would be used over and over again, just on the off-chance that everyone forgot what the phrase in question was(even though it was in the title and in the previous 20 posts).
With all due respect, who asked you to post?
See how this works now?
Good thing I never did what.
Whew! What a relief!
No one, that’s why I don’t get bitchy when people respond to me.
I don’t know what else to call it when you come into every thread about the administration and explain in lovely supercilious tones why Ed can do no wrong. Even if the rest of us are, in fact, idiots, you’d think that after the 10th time you feel ragged on by a bunch of people, you’d just not post in those threads.
Thank you good Sir/Ma’am.
I vote lollipops.
Why would they? No one has made the argument that they can’t talk like adults unless they are allowed to use the word “cunt”. It’s not really about this one (seemingly arbitrarily chosen) word.
If the best you can do to defend this nonsensical rule is pull out strawmen like that, maybe you shouldn’t even bother.
My objection is to the existence of a banned words list. The specific items on that list are less important.
So… agreeing with Ed’s decisions automatically makes you a spokesperson? And there’s no other conceivable characterization?
Wow. Just wow.
Regarding this pressing issue of the day, at least to some people:
I have zero problem with these restrictions. Before the hammer fell, I had never read a post that used the banned phrases in a worthwhile manner.
So there’s no downside. What’s the upside?
Well people with an insane sense of persecution are provided with an opportunity to whine. That’s always a crowd pleaser. And the rule complements the first commandment: don’t be a jerk. That is, those who can’t quite manage to ascertain what the prime restriction means -it’s so vague!- are provided with a bright line example. That’s gotta count for something. Also, some snowflakes are propelled into a state of agitation by the merest hint that perhaps they shouldn’t just post anything and everything that crosses their precious minds. An awareness that one’s words can affect others can be a first step on the path of personal growth. So I am 300% for this regulation.
I disagree with all three of these sentences.
Setting aside the nit-picking oddity of MsWhatsit disagreeing about what someone else perceived:
I seriously doubt whether anybody outside of elementary school can’t usefully rephrase their cogitations to avoid the prohibited phrases. Think of it as a mental exercise. Sort of like Sudoku.
I meant, obviously, that I disagree that there are no problems with the restrictions. I will readily agree that you have no problems with them.
I did not do that in here. Nor do I come into “every thread about the administration” and do the above.
Posts are public, and anyone can read them and draw their own conclusions. Reasonable people will disagree.
How unfortunate.