On Language

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Because I was quoting your words!

There's nothing complicated about this -- if you don't want people to be distracted by vulgarity don't use vulgarity.

Apparently you wish to provoke by using vulgar expressions, but you don't wish to be censured for doing so. I don't think many people are fooled by the charade.

Correct. It is just a feeble attempt to remain politically correct, although intended as a profane expression to make an impression or provoke. The need to use such language, unless one is a habitual (ab)user, usually originates from low self-esteem, IOW comes from people with issues.

Cheers,
Bart

[dseelig]

So I would ask a question why take a chance on offending anyone. Michael or Kevin should not have to say what is right we should all try and not offend each other. On Facebook today I posted something on politics that  a real friend did not agree with and someone I barely know said she had no heart. I took him to task as I should there is no point in taking a chance on  offending  people. Listen in my own language I doubt anyone curses more then I but on the internet I try to be very careful as without seeing me knowing me you have no idea how I would mean something.  I am glad we are talking and not screaming at each other.

[BJL]

Some time ago, I proposed to replace the vulgar RTFM ...

I always read that as "Read The Full Manual".  And in the photo above, clearly WTF = Way Too Fat.

[Schewe]

So I would ask a question why take a chance on offending anyone.

If you go through life eliminating any chance of offending people, then you must be like the Dali Lama. He's the only person that I know of who is so enlightened that never offending anybody would seem second nature. But, he sure does piss off the Chinese government :~)

Some posters have taken a black & white position on expletives of any kind. Hum, I see more than just black & white to this argument. There are plenty of shades in between. It's up to all of us to decide for ourselves. I choose to use alternate spelling or euphemisms...and that is tolerated by the LuLa owners (I've seen Mike use some euphemisms over the years). If somebody chooses to be offended, you have a choice, deal with it or don't. But that's your choice, I've made mine.

P.S. the amount of self righteousness in this thread is really pretty impressive. Reminds me of a Tea Party rally :~)

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Speaking of euphemisms, most LuLa readers are probably too young to have ever heard the one that used to be very common, many years ago: "Unmentionables."

I find it quite amusing, as it clearly represents an attempt to provide a name for something that "must not be named."   

[dseelig]

I am talking about on this site in terms offending anyone and internet forums in general why bother. when you offend you lose them and never will you get them back. I brought  this up to make people think. For me comparing anyone to the tea party is pretty insulting what is the point of that. I find it pretty funny that so many that would insult here would never do it face to face. No not making threats just pointing out reality. Just because someone sets a limit does not mean you should not go the extra mile and be as good as you can. I have also never seen Michael insult anyone here. How you use a curse word or substitute makes all the difference. By the way I was the  white guy who grew up a minority person I played basketball in NYC .  I could tell some stories about language used.

[Schewe]

I find it pretty funny that so many that would insult here would never do it face to face.

If you are talking about me, what you see here on LuLa is what you would get in person except I DO use expletives in person. In point of fact, I'm actually more polite here than in person...make of that what you wish.

But hey, there's hope...I've just started reading In My Own Words by the Dali Lama. So, maybe that will have an impact on how I deal with people (but I wouldn't hold your breath).

[Isaac]

If somebody chooses to be offended, you have a choice, deal with it or don't. But that's your choice, I've made mine.

P.S. the amount of self righteousness in this thread is really pretty impressive.

Oh! The Irony! :-)

[dseelig]

Language is a very tough thing I meant if you curse or use words at people. No I was not talking about you Schewe. Was truly talking in general.

[Manoli]

LuLa is a public forum...when you type some words, they go out to the internet never to be removed. It's exists for ever...so, if you want to make a point, it behooves you to understand the implications of what you type.

So, think before you type (I always do) and see if you can craft your language to get you point across without using offending language. I mean WTF?

LuLa is Mike's (and now Kev's) place...they set the rules. But it would be useful for everybody here to respect the LuLa community and do nothing to soil it.

And on that we agree.
But you invoke, quite correctly, the gospel according to St. Mike, and Mike spelt it out:

"Gratuitous profanity is inappropriate here, just as it would be at someones dining room table."

What part don't you get ?
Gratuitous ? look it up.
Profanity ? try this:

“ Profanity is a subset of a language's lexicon that is generally considered in society to be strongly impolite or offensive. ... can take the form of words, expressions, gestures or other social behaviours that are construed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, obscene, obnoxious, foul … “

If somebody uses a euphemism, it's unfair to read that as the actual, fully typed words. If you choose to ignore the euphemism and read the full words, that's on you.

ROTFLMAO

Some posters have taken a black & white position on expletives of any kind.

I don't see that anywhere – I see shades of grey (think Epson ABW, not the book) - care to quote ?

I see more than just black & white to this argument. There are plenty of shades in between. It's up to all of us to decide for ourselves.

Not according to your own quotes above. So what is it - a free-for-all or Mike's word ?

P.S. the amount of self righteousness in this thread is really pretty impressive.

Again, don't see that anywhere but I do see humbug in abundance.

So Jeff, say what you mean and mean what you say. What's the matter with you, having a bad-hair day or are you simply deluded with your self styled pit-bull moniker ? What you continue to avoid addressing is the 'context and tenor' of the written word.  Either way,

Dans l'attente, cher Monsieur, veuillez agréer l'expression de mes sentiments les plus distinguées.

M

P.S.
And whether you interpret that as a respectful salutation, as intended, or simply an extension of the proverbial middle finger is, in your own words,  'down to you … not me.'  See - context matters.

[Manoli]

And BFD could stand for Big Friggin Deal. jjj typed the full version, I didn't because I understand the rules. If and when Michael and company spell out that BFD or RTFM is not tolerated, I'll be happy to refrain from their use. [...]

Time to Man-Up, Andrew.  Michael did spell out the rules - see above.

I've got no issue with you, Andrew. Far from it. I've got no issue with your using BFD, WTF or any of the other initialisms either, in an appropriate context. What I react to is the hypocrisy of Jeff berating 'jjj' for (incorrectly, I agree) spelling out the f-word in the face of continued BFD'ing in what was a thinly disguised provocation - and then trying to justify his stance with a chronicle of how he moderated his 'social limitations'. All of which have zero bearing on 'respecting the LuLa community and do nothing to soil it'.

Mike spelt it out, and unless it's one rule for all and another for Jeff - the message is clear. And, yes, CONTEXT and TENOR do matter. Period.

Sorry guys, not going to waste any more time in asinine discussions.

[digitaldog]

But you invoke, quite correctly, the gospel according to St. Mike, and Mike spelt it out:

"Gratuitous profanity is inappropriate here, just as it would be at someones dining room table."

What part don't you get ?
Gratuitous ? look it up.
Profanity ? try this:

“ Profanity is a subset of a language's lexicon that is generally considered in society to be strongly impolite or offensive. ... can take the form of words, expressions, gestures or other social behaviours that are construed or interpreted as insulting, rude, vulgar, obscene, obnoxious, foul … “

Ah, again it's context. I know what Gratuitous is but Gratuitous Profanity? Is WFT simply Profanity while spelling it out is Gratuitous Profanity? What about BS? I may feel BS is Gratuitous Profanity or I may feel writing it out is Gratuitous Profanity or I may feel Jeff's creative spelling is Gratuitous Profanity or none of the above. Do we limit this to 'the seven dirty' words or add others? Is WFT worse than telling someone to 'screw off' or "Piss Off" or "Bite me"? Or insert another word for screw? Is the so called "N" word worse than any of the other words for other races that are used in a highly derogatory way? It's a very slippery slope.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Is WFT worse than telling someone to 'screw off' or "Piss Off" or "Bite me"?...

This evening, driving out of Chicago

[Schewe]

So Jeff, say what you mean and mean what you say. What's the matter with you, having a bad-hair day or are you simply deluded with your self styled pit-bull moniker ? What you continue to avoid addressing is the 'context and tenor' of the written word.

Oh, I do (and that's what seems to piss off some people no end). Nothing I've written in this thread (or the one that spawned it) is anything other than totally authentic.

So, can we agree that writing out the full word for an obscenity is unacceptable on LuLa? If so, (and I think we better all agree otherwise the monitors are gonna be really busy) then my calling JJJ on the carpet for crossing a line was valid and reasonable...

Now, to the rest of the verbal diarrhea regarding alt spellings, alt words and euphemisms, the jury is still out. Nothing about Mike's statement: "Gratuitous profanity is inappropriate here, just as it would be at someones dining room table." doesn't really address that. That's where the root of the debate falls. It seems like it's ok sometimes for some people and not ok for other people other times. Sorry, but we've not reached a consensus about alt spellings, alt words and euphemisms. And so far, Mike's said nothing about that specifically.

So, I realize I'm a polarizing figure here...and when I took JJJ to task for spelling out the full obscenity, I became a big target because of the appearance of hypocrisy. But that's pure BS. There are lines in the sand here...I get up to the line but am careful not to cross what I see as the line. Spelling out an obscenity is over the line...right? Beyond that, it's still fuzzy (and will remain so).

[Manoli]

Spelling out an obscenity is over the line...right? Beyond that, it's still fuzzy (and will remain so).

Not unless you wish it to remain so.

No-one is doubting the authenticity of your posts (content and veracity, yes)  no-one (that I can see) is disputing that writing out the full word for an obscenity is unacceptable on LuLa and no-one is saying that your calling JJJ on the carpet for crossing a line wasn't valid and reasonable ...

Andrew provoked 'jjj' and 'jjj' reacted. In football (soccer) parlance, 'jjj' got a red card. It happens.  If you need a paragon, think Zidane v Materazzi in the 2006 World Cup Final; one was verbal, the other physical; one was in the LuLa community, the other was in front of 2 billion tv viewers. Same principle. End of story.

So don't continue with this obfuscation and fixation on a singular instance when there is a rudimentary point in discussion.  Rather than resolve any perceived ambiguity, you're doing everything possible to perpetuate it.

Nothing about Mike's statement: "Gratuitous profanity is inappropriate here, just as it would be at someones dining room table." doesn't really address that. That's where the root of the debate falls. It seems like it's ok sometimes for some people and not ok for other people other times. Sorry, but we've not reached a consensus about alt spellings, alt words and euphemisms. And so far, Mike's said nothing about that specifically.

But he doesn't need to and no, we don't need consensus, because, in your own words, “ LuLa is Mike's place... and it behoves everybody here to respect the LuLa community and do nothing to soil it. “ And yet again, it is you who misses the point – it is NOT  ' ok sometimes for some people and not ok for other people other times'.  Where did you see that ? You didn't.  It is quite simply 'ok for all people some of the time' depending on the context and tenor(*) - 'just as it would be at someones dining room table'.

(*) And by 'tenor' you are to equally infer 'intent, import, gist ..etc'

You may not like it, and it may or may not have been inadvertent, but IMO Mike's sentence was quite brilliant in it's simplicity. In fifteen words he's set a guideline which is the yardstick for all.  It'll last for ever.

Combine that with the forum rules which state unequivocally that ' you will not post any material which is abusive, vulgar, obscene, profane …' and you're good to go. The only 'grey' area that one may possibly query is the point where a colloquialism crosses into a vulgarity or vice versa (such as your twee adaptation of the word 'BS'). But perhaps we can leave that to another thread - this is a photographic forum / community not a society of vestal virgins.

I've put it to you before I'll  ask again “what is the difference between the initialisms WTF and my writing 'ef-u' , other than one is an exclamation and the other a dysphemism – short answer: none,  except that the INTENT of the latter is clearly abusive. Capisce ?

And if you're still struggling with the concept of 'intent' ask yourself  this:  what's the difference between murder and manslaughter ?

As Voltaire said “ I may not agree with what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it.” just as long you respect Mike's rules (with a smattering of artistic licence)

So Jeff, NO, I don't see any ambiguity and, NO, we don't need consensus. Your imaginary line in the sand just got a bit of territorial expansion.

One final point, kindly spare me the feigned pit-bull moniker. No one who has contributed in the selfless way you have over the years (despite all the huff and puff), who has the gravitas you have, who has been married to the same woman for over 40 years (unless she's certifiable, which I seriously doubt) comes over as a pretty A OK guy. You're fooling no-one.

[/written with a respectful nod and a wink]

[BJL]

Partly, it bemuses me that some people worry so much about particular sequences of letters, rather than the message intended by them.  I am far more bothered by repeated disparagement of another poster's honesty, intelligence and competence phrased in completely SFW language than I would be if someone idiomatically said:
”Hey, <bleep>ing great photos; you're a talented <four syllable bad word>.”
(Not that anyone ever has.)

But writing online in view of many people I do not know, I am for the self-restraint of the "dinner with some guests that I know very little about" rule ... unless a particular site or thread has already established that more liberal standards are acceptable to its participants.

[michael]

I think it's time to draw this to a close.

We are (mostly) adults here, and I am loath to create arbitrary standards. Sometimes, even in civilized discourse, profanity is acceptable. Language also changes. "Pissed off" used to be considered vulgar. Now it seems to be acceptable.

I have no desire to create arbitrary rules, so if we all just act like grown-ups this forum can be mostly self-policing, as it has been for some 15 years.

Let's move on.

Michael

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Gee, Manoli, the longer posts you write, the less I get what your point is