|
In lugnet.general, Mark Jordan wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Orion Pobursky wrote:
> > The above is why I explicitly object to the draconian enforcement of language
> > standards. These words are *NOT* bad but simply words. Their use to convey
> > thoughts, ideas, feelings and emotions is the same as any other word in the
> > English language. If the argument is that these word are typically viewed as
> > inaappropriate then I contend the *any* word can be used in an inappropriate
> > manner and what is inappropriate for some may not be inappropriate for others.
>
> This is true, but there are some words that many people find offensive and/or
> don't want their kids to see.
>
> But I don't think the issue here is about naughty words.
>
> I think the issue here is with the Orwellian mode of enforcement. I'd prefer to
> see a black and white list of offensive words which aren't acceptable on Lugnet.
> That way people can easily avoid these ugly situations.
By what standard do you create this list? See this post for reference:
http://news.lugnet.com/admin/general/?n=12104
-Orion
|
|
Message has 1 Reply: | | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) I'd prefer to (...) This is exactly why Lugnet has not published a list of no-no words. But really, is there anyone here who doesn't know that f**k is a bad word? I think the only two words that would get you an email from an admin are f**k (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
|
| (...) This is true, but there are some words that many people find offensive and/or don't want their kids to see. But I don't think the issue here is about naughty words. I think the issue here is with the Orwellian mode of enforcement. I'd prefer (...) (20 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
29 Messages in This Thread:
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|