Will you be our new professor of scatology, we really don't need another one but if you really want to I'm sure where there's a will there's a way.:itold:
******** No. . . . I personally use profanities in excess . . but I try to "moderate" their use when I am communcating with others. Right on! . . . on a public forum especially . . . answer to your re: moderation? response. Your remark re: 'hello kitty' etc, . . . . is humorous at best, but somehow I get the impression that you meant it as a 'snide' remark.
sca·tol·o·gy/skəˈtäləjē/Noun: 1.An interest in or preoccupation with excrement and excretion. 2.Obscene literature that is concerned with excrement and excretion. So . . . I guess my answer to your query would be 'no'. . . . since in your opinion, Sciforums has others.
And yet! This is supposed to make sense? Oh, it was fully intended to be snide. I am sorry if that was not quite clear to you. We are all mostly adults here and yes, the greater majority are known to say "fuck" or "bitch" or "shit" on occasion while posting on this site. If that offends you, then you can use use programs to filter out words that you deem offensive and uncivil.
Noun 1. civility - formal or perfunctory politeness good manners, courtesy - a courteous manner incivility - deliberate discourtesy 2. civility - the act of showing regard for others politeness action - something done (usually as opposed to something said); "there were stories of murders and other unnatural actions" courtesy - a courteous or respectful or considerate act deference, respect - a courteous expression (by word or deed) of esteem or regard; "his deference to her wishes was very flattering"; "be sure to give my respects to the dean" devoir - formal expression of respect Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.
Bells" I was doing you 'the courtesy' of giving you the "benefit-of the-doubt' . . . . guess I was wrong . . . .
Mr wilminex, you are known to show little regard for your fellow posters or the moderators and administrators of this site. In fact, you once spammed this site with the exact same message when you were unhappy with a decision that was made in regards to moderation. I do not consider such behaviour to be civil or showing courtesy to this site and those who participate in it. Do you? Certainly, we can consider this thread to exist in a vacuum where you are concerned, but you are not above the fray. If you wish to be considered an equal in this forum, then you will be treated accordingly and equally as everyone else is treated. This thread appears to be a snide complaint about a moderator's words and actions. You claim you only wish for decorum, but your version of decorum amounts to a high level of censorship and forcing others to only post as you want them to post. I do not consider that to fit into your desire that we all be equal on this site. As you can see, there is quite a bit of strong opposition to your wish of banning profanity on this site. So why do you keep pushing for it? If profanity offends you so much, there are other sites where it is banned. I would suggest you go there first or look at net nanny programs that will filter out profanity. But banning words like "fuck" is not what this forum is about. We moderate on a case by case basis when it is brought to our attention through a report or complaint, especially when insults are concerned. But we do not ban words, Mr wlminex. Thank you. But you are a few days early.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
you can make rules till the cows came home and they would all be broken before the ink dried. the primary problem here is justice, you know, fair play? but i do agree that there are a few that don't do much else but troll with the ad homs.
Oh noes! Not another kumquatting thread on how we should all stick to one individual's pineappley view of how we shouldn't strawberry swear or insult idiots. http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=91607&highlight=kumquat
All that for a Tebow joke An excellent example of the second question I noted above; indeed, that's pretty much the episode that I had in mind. Not that I have much to add, but therein lies the question that leads to a bunch of other questions. Of course, that's why I don't have much to add; I'll think about the implications later. Meanwhile, instead of pointing out the obvious part that is lost on deaf ears—i.e., nobody is perfect and thus cannot eternally live up to their own standards—let us seek a little more definition from our neighbor as to just what he wants us to do about whatever problems he believes he is observing. Well, I'm thinking of the "C" episode. And the bit where a breed of limes is an offensive word. We have, as a staff, had our moments. And, yes, I know, I know. I share much of the obvious sentiment with you about those episodes. But perhaps we ought to put the question of saying versus doing aside long enough to see what people come up with. To the one, it might be entertaining. To the other, it will likely be enlightening. And to Zaphod's third, perhaps if we point out the obvious in plain enough language enough times as we go along, perhaps we can establish some sort of record that, while not necessarily definitive, will be good enough for the staff to link to in the future and say, "Have fun storming the castle; let us know what you come up with. And, yes, there is the nearly mythic possibility that someone will accidentally stumble onto the genuinely right answer that nobody can find on purpose, and solve all our woes. True, I consider this potential somewhere just this side of the Universe ending next Tuesday after tea, but since that actually coincides somewhat with the Iowa caucuses, I suppose anything is possible. You know, it's funny, though. My mother has a hardwired neurosis about the word "fart". So I can at least put in my two cents toward the day I open a complaint email that says, "PERSONAL ATTACK!!!!!!HE CALLED ME A 'TOOTER'!!!!!!" Okay, so I'm tipping my hand a bit there. But, er ... well, yeah. Let's see what they come up with. Who knows? Maybe Tim Tebow will shimmy up your chimney next winter.
Have you read the site rules? They are available for your perusal as an announcement at the top of every subforum. We have rules against personal insults and excessive profanity already. On the other hand, we don't have a rule that you're immune from criticism when you say something stupid or wrong. We've had the profanity discussion here before. There was a consensus that we should not censor "swear words" as a general rule. Don't like it? Sorry, you were outvoted long ago. What ever gave you the impression that all humans are equal? Even the ones here (?) We might be "equal" in some ways, but in many ways we quite obviously are not.
Well said, James. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It is my observation that persons who posture as righteously indignant ethical 'do-gooders' are usually the ones who will steal you blind and try to deal your spouse behind your back as they lecture you on your' moral unworthiness. Censorship by any other name would still smell as bad.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! BAILIFF ! whack his pee pee. edit: the most probable source for the above quote seems to be from cheech and chong from their "up in smoke" album. from the track "trippin' in court". i've searched for the lyrics but can't find any for the said track. i originally attributed the quote to frank zappa. sorry.
Much as I've enjoyed the philosophical meditations on poo and pee here, it seems to me the original point was that it should be considered an "offense" if you tell someone up front that they suck at math. I think it's a vastly greater insult, to the community and the internet as a whole, when someone goes around here preaching pseudoscientific woo woo while claiming to be knowledgeable about the field of science they're trying to discuss, produces further nonsense when challenged to demonstrate their conventional knowledge in the area, and proceeds to scream and moan that we're being offensive to their poorly-constructed sensibilities for daring to correct them and question their competence.
Well . . . thanks for your posts anyway . . . . Stoniphi Post #34: "It is my observation that persons who posture as righteously indignant ethical 'do-gooders' are usually the ones who will steal you blind and try to deal your spouse behind your back as they lecture you on your' moral unworthiness." Acc/to the SM (Scientific Method) you can derive a hypothesis from your observations . . .apply experimentation to your hypothesis . . . and eventually (hopefully) derive a 'theory' . . . perhaps you should make additional observations? BTW: Posturing?? . . . . I think not . . . this thread is just my meager attempt to make Sciforums more civil . . . for all participants! James R: "We have rules against personal insults and excessive profanity already." That's GREAT . . . why not enforce them (rules)!
Personally I like it when someone points out an error in my mathematics because it will either be something related to my work so I'll have real benefit from it or it'll be something unrelated and thus I can take it as another little factoid to remember. Anyone who gets indignant about an honest evaluation of their work should reevaluate their take know things. Yes, if it is delivered as 'you are a tucking retard who should be beaten with a hammer' then it isn't good but a disection of errors with explanations of why they are errors should be accepted graciously. The fact of the matter is most people suck at maths and physics. You can hear people proudly saying 'I was always rubbish with sums' despite the fact most people wouldn't be proud if they couldn't read. If you come to a place called SCIforums and can't accept knowledgeable replies from scientists pointing out your knowledge isn't perfect you are, frankly, an idiot. Wlminex, here's (again) my tips for your contributions to get more civil responses. Pack it in with the one liner sniping posts. If you think someone is mistaken then elaborate on why. If you report a post then you don't need to post one liner saying so. The relevant admin will read your complaint. If you must post something then explain way you disagree with a post, don't just snipe. Repeating the same one liner in multiple threads contributes little, if not nothing if the post doesn't explain itself. And if you have a.gripe with a person, the scientific method or how your claims have.been viewed then make a single thread in the relevant forum and explain your thoughts so a discussion can be had. Peppering one liner half thought out posts everywhere, including threads where they are not relevant, contributes nothing but increased background noise. Manage this and I am in no doubt you'll see civility in threads you post in go up.
They are enforced. That is why you have an infraction tab in your profile. You can go to your own and look at examples of the moderators enforcing said rules.
I agree, there are site rules against that kind of behaviour, and discusting language will be censored. But... I think Wlminex has a general point, because, James, if civility was really held at this place, then shouldn't bullying be also against the rules? I think last time I raised that subject, a few people here admitted that bullying went on?
