 | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | (...) It seems you and I agree. Like I said- IF the young person does not know the word, (though most do) then he will not infer the word from a partial spelling. The only people to infer a dirty word will be those who are familiar with it and (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) I don't think the minifigs are flexible enough. Dave! (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Jeff Thompson
|
| | | | | | (...) Think photorealistic rendering. Ewwwww. -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily" (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Jeff Thompson
|
| | | | | (...) Welcome to the odd, sexually repressed reality of America. General rule: "You can't show bare breasts on network TV. (Unless they belong to a woman being tortured by Nazis.)" Seriously, our puritan culture has hang-ups about graphic portrayals (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | | In lugnet.admin.general, Christopher Lannan writes: More thoughts- What about the AFOL acronymn "POOP" How many of us can honestly say it wasn't chosen because of its "potty humour" nature. Piece out of other pieces should be pooop, shouldn't it? I (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Jeff Thompson
|
| | | | | | (...) Oh, good grief. "Poop" is too vulgar for this newsgroup? Yes, the potty-mouth / bodily function humor of the term was entirely the point. See (URL) for a discussion of the history of the term and other acronyms the AFOL community has (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | | | (...) I was being not-too-subtly sarcastic. POOP is just fine. Chris (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Jeff Thompson
|
| | | | | | (...) Sorry - my irony-detector needs rewiring, obviously. (Slinks off abashedly) -- jthompson@esker.com "Float on a river, forever and ever, Emily" (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Eric Kingsley
|
| | | | (...) I want to make my point clear on this issue. For me it is not allways something to protect kids. For me I am as you say "spoiled" so I know what is meant when a * or whatever is used to mask a letter (usually a vowel) in a word. To me this is (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | (...) familiar (...) Circular logic is logic that is circular ;) Obscenity is something that is obscene. (...) You're right! That's exactly what I meant. It's "eye of the beholder" mixed in with some "community standards" generally agreed upon (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) I don't think anyone would argue that obscenity is anything other than a social and/or personal convention, rather than some inherent quality or state; it's largely a matter of consensus. That's not to say obscenity doesn't "exist"--it exists (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | (...) Then tell me what "obscenity" is, since it exists. (...) That's my point about how subjective it is. One zealot who says any word/image/sound/obj...ought/farm animal is obscene is a crazy man- if we get enough of those zealots together, (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —James Brown
|
| | | | | (...) Obscene is one of a number of slippery words that are contextually defined. In most english speaking countries, for example, bodily waste is refered to by multiple terms, some "obscene", some not. It generally depends on the context for most (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | | | (...) Well, how about another AFOL acronym- CRAPP- obviously NOT "polite usage." I think that it is a convention thing- defined by the community- in this case, however, since LUGNET is worldwide, I guess the standards are Todd's. So I would tender a (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) state; (...) Let me start by saying I think we agree on the meat of the issue. However, I think some people are succumbing to the falacy that in order to exist, something must be identifiable in words, which is surely not the case. I can't (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Christopher Lannan
|
| | | | (...) Ok- got me there. (...) Yes! Both, I think. I just chose objectionable because I was trying to make a definition that wasn't circular. (Obsenity is obscene, fearful things make you feel afraid) Perhaps "extremely objectionable" is a better (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Language slipping? —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) Good points, and bravo to you for bringing this debate out of the realm of the pointlessly theorical and putting it back into Lugnet! (...) Agreed. Some people might not like this seeming Monarchy of Lugnet, but it *is* Todd's sandbox (as (...) (25 years ago, 22-Dec-99, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
