Re: The mad doctor : Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:27 pm  

terrykelly wrote:

is there any need to blaspheme ?
So folk cannot swear on here, but a moderator can do this.
Double standards mate.

Pumpetypump wrote:

My philosophy is that one is offensive and the other is alluding to a fictional son of god. I don't know without brushing up what the aup says about innocuous references to made up greater powers. Perhaps it had its own section.

Firstly, you used the word "innocuous" incorrectly.

2. Member Conduct

2.1. Comments that are meant to upset or cause distress to other members are prohibited on this site.
* We will not tolerate threatening or abusive behaviour. Anyone who is found guilty of acting this way toward any other member risks being banned from RLFANS.

Apologise and it'll be seen as a minor error of judgment.
Continue to defend it and be seen as a minor bully.

[Pumpetypump]

Re: The mad doctor : Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:48 pm  

Charlie Sierra wrote:

Firstly, you used the word "innocuous" incorrectly.

2. Member Conduct

2.1. Comments that are meant to upset or cause distress to other members are prohibited on this site.
* We will not tolerate threatening or abusive behaviour. Anyone who is found guilty of acting this way toward any other member risks being banned from RLFANS.

Apologise and it'll be seen as a minor error of judgment.
Continue to defend it and be seen as a minor bully.

Nope. I don't know what Christian mafia you represent but I won't be lectured on the use of "christ". Nor the farcical likening of it to swearing.

frankly calling me a bully disgusts me and I would urge you to report me to the site admins at your earliest convenience.

Re: The mad doctor : Sat Mar 15, 2014 4:55 pm  

Ferocious Aardvark wrote:

None of the above. This is "Flexwheeler", and ascribing any level of cognitive functioning above, say, turnip, is simply the triumph of hope over experience.

Re: The mad doctor : Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:01 pm  

Charlie Sierra wrote:

Firstly, you used the word "innocuous" incorrectly.

Christ on a stick! You are confusing differences of opinion with differences in word meaning. You may wish to read some Wittgenstein to help familiarise yourself with the inherently limited nature of language as a medium for expressing ideas and thoughts.

I'd like to point out that this above comment is not meant to offend. Rather it is a (admittedly weak) attempt at poking fun at just how ridiculous this has got. I realise that perhaps a winking face or something might have been more concise than this mini-essay, but it is important that those of us on the forum with more delicate constitutions have it made clear that not every comment that they are offended by is meant to offend them. There are some delicate little flowers on this forum, and it would be a shame if they didn't feel welcome. To those little flowers: The world is a cruel and unforgiving place at times, and it is important to be strong enough in your beliefs that when someone says something that feels like an attack, you don't immediately feel crushed by it. Life is too short to allow these things to get to you. Have a hug. *hug* Nobody can make you feel anything that you don't consent to feeling. You ARE in control of your destiny. I can strongly recommend a period in therapy or at a meditation retreat to improve your coping strategies. Also: BOTTOMS!!

Re: The mad doctor : Sat Mar 15, 2014 5:40 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

Nope. I don't know what Christian mafia you represent but I won't be lectured on the use of "christ". Nor the farcical likening of it to swearing.

frankly calling me a bully disgusts me and I would urge you to report me to the site admins at your earliest convenience.

Actually, "Christ" would be a perfect example of what a swear word actually is - an oath. Historically would have been preceded by "by" which hardly ever survives now but appears when you say "by golly" (a euphemism for "by god"). In medieval times, saying something like "by God's teeth" would have been considered very controversial and offensive. I think you are confusing swearing with profanity of which swearing is a subset. Profanity also includes bad language, strong language, foul language, vulgar, cursing, cussing, or using expletives.

Of course you are perfectly entitled to be profane or swear, as it's a free country (whether it is allowed under forum rules is an entirely different question) but to suggest it is not swearing is simply not true.

I'd also suggest you could at least be an equal opportunities offender and use Mohammed as a swear word as well, or perhaps Buddha...or is it just the Christian faith you have in it for?

[Pumpetypump]

Re: The mad doctor : Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:16 pm  

mapleyther wrote:

snip

This is thread derailment now.

As I say, as a moderator I am answerable to the admins of rl fans. I would encourage you again to take any complaint about me through the proper channels.

Love and kisses. Xx

Re: The mad doctor : Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:25 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

This is thread derailment now.

As I say, as a moderator I am answerable to the admins of rl fans. I would encourage you again to take any complaint about me through the proper channels.

Love and kisses. Xx

Nice out!

I have no complaint against you whatsoever, of course...other than your bizarre definition of what swearing is...

Re: The mad doctor : Sat Mar 15, 2014 6:31 pm  

Its getting embarrassing on here lately

Re: The mad doctor : Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:12 pm  

mapleyther wrote:

...
I'd also suggest you could at least be an equal opportunities offender and use Mohammed as a swear word as well, or perhaps Buddha...or is it just the Christian faith you have in it for?

I can't speak for anyone else, but I am pretty much an equal opportunities guy when it comes to ridiculing religious fckwittery. We used to have the ultimate religious fckwit (kirkstaller) on here regularly till he got himself banned. What you need to take into account is that people may well not "have it in" for any faith (personally I think the notion of a supreme being is illogical and unworthy of a human brain, but can see that many religious people do in general often aim to do good rather than harm and it is just a pity they would need to do that because some sky pixie said it, rather than for its own sake).

However if you want to go on the offensive (for example with some feigned and strained objection to vernacular chat) then you should not mistake the ridicule that is rightly going to come your way for anything other than what it is. If you don't want the coconuts knocking down, simply don't set them up.

Re: The mad doctor : Sat Mar 15, 2014 8:23 pm  

Pumpetypump wrote:

Pop tart, kinley and I all watched it at allerton bywater working mens (neutral ground). They'll vouch for me.

Ah, so 2 Wakey fans...very representative, I'm sure (though I reckon most would share the opinion), though it's your assumption, posted as fact, rather than anything with substance.

Mrs Koucash is, of course, a vapid front for Mr Koucash's evil plans (is that better?).