Revenge of the Elephant!

[Paulo Bizarro]

I agree, but it can be a criteria about your value to the site and the other members visiting here.

Why? I respect some members' opinion, and don't pay attention whether they post their photos here. I see no rule that demands that members need to post photos here.

[Paulo Bizarro]

And as a moderator, I'll endorse your view.

Jeremy

So, can you once and for all clarify whether "shit" is acceptable? If I understood Chris correctly, in the past it was not.

[LesPalenik]

So, can you once and for all clarify whether "shit" is acceptable? If I understood Chris correctly, in the past it was not.

As a four letter word or in the form of those infantile illustrations?

[Manoli]

So, can you once and for all clarify whether "shit" is acceptable? If I understood Chris correctly, in the past it was not.

Michael had a simple rule that has been often repeated but which bears repetition: 
Use language that is acceptable around a friend’s (Michael’s) dinner table.

Well Chris, I’m pleased that I’m not the only one who remembers that one - and good to know that ‘s**t’ is still off the table. As an adjunct to the acceptable forms of ‘shyte’ and BS then, I’d suggest adding another polite alternative,  the Greek version - ‘skata’, which is, of course, the word from which ‘scatology’ was derived.

Far more palatable.

[Paulo Bizarro]

As a four letter word or in the form of those infantile illustrations?

As a four letter word, I prefer to be clear rather than infantile.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

To satisfy Paolo's appetite for... clarity, I edited my initial response (#2).

[pegelli]

Why? I respect some members' opinion, and don't pay attention whether they post their photos here. I see no rule that demands that members need to post photos here.

Why are you assuming my position? And I never said there was a rule for people to post images here, those are your words.
I just said it was a criteria, how one applies it is entirely up to the reader. If someone thinks that the value is higher without photo's that's fine.
It's just one of the criteria (there can be many more) to judge people's value here, that's all I wanted to say. No more, no less..

[Jeremy Roussak]

So, can you once and for all clarify whether "shit" is acceptable? If I understood Chris correctly, in the past it was not.

Paolo, read my my first post as moderator. I will very seldom take action against people who use particular words but I will not enter into discussions over which words are permitted and which are not. There are worse guidelines than these, but they are just that: guidelines.

Use common sense.

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Ah, the joys of being a moderator!

From the BBC guidelines I learned that if I order a peach tart in a pastry shop, I may cause mild offense.   

Eric

P.S. You're doing a fine job of keeping your cool, Jeremy!

[RSL]

Jeremy's an attorney. He's gotta keep his cool to survive.

[Paulo Bizarro]

Paolo, read my my first post as moderator. I will very seldom take action against people who use particular words but I will not enter into discussions over which words are permitted and which are not. There are worse guidelines than these, but they are just that: guidelines.

Use common sense.

Jeremy

I did, second one says:

"•Robust discussion is to be encouraged but offensive language is not. That is not intended to be a ban on all language which to which anyone might take exception - we are not maiden aunts - but consideration of whether the words used would be spoken in a face-to-face conversation in a home will give some indication of what is acceptable."

My take from all this is that using "ass" is wrong, but using "shit" is fine, according to your (different) actions to the two posters who used the terms. The first was "banned - worthy", the second was not. To me, "shit" is more offensive than "ass", but what do I know...

[Rob C]

I did, second one says:

"•Robust discussion is to be encouraged but offensive language is not. That is not intended to be a ban on all language which to which anyone might take exception - we are not maiden aunts - but consideration of whether the words used would be spoken in a face-to-face conversation in a home will give some indication of what is acceptable."

My take from all this is that using "ass" is wrong, but using "shit" is fine, according to your (different) actions to the two posters who used the terms. The first was "banned - worthy", the second was not. To me, "shit" is more offensive than "ass", but what do I know...

The problem with all of this stuff about swearing, quasi-swearing etc. is that its value or offence quotient is variable depending on country.

A further problem is that in general, it makes no real sense in the context of most conversations; I suppose it simply serves as a valve to relieve pressure building up in the brain.

I remember that the garage door once swung around in the breeze and gave me a bang on the elbow's funny bone. Far from funny, it produced a stream of oaths I was surprised to know was perfectly within my power to recite. The pain was so severe that I remember having to go indoors and lie down in order not to do so in the driveway.

I suppose that illustrates the point that swearing helps the mind but not the body.

There's also a difference between swearing at somebody, calling them a whatever, and swearing in a more general manner, where some insentient thing is the object of one's verbal affection. A car that won't start is an example that comes to mind.

I'm not sure about maiden aunts, though; I never had one.

However, insofar as writing oaths goes, ¡t can mean a bit of unnecessary typing.

[Robert Roaldi]

The problem with all of this stuff about swearing, quasi-swearing etc. is that its value or offence quotient is variable depending on country.

A further problem is that in general, it makes no real sense in the context of most conversations; I suppose it simply serves as a valve to relieve pressure building up in the brain.

I remember that the garage door once swung around in the breeze and gave me a bang on the elbow's funny bone. Far from funny, it produced a stream of oaths I was surprised to know was perfectly within my power to recite. The pain was so severe that I remember having to go indoors and lie down in order not to do so in the driveway.

I suppose that illustrates the point that swearing helps the mind but not the body.

There's also a difference between swearing at somebody, calling them a whatever, and swearing in a more general manner, where some insentient thing is the object of one's verbal affection. A car that won't start is an example that comes to mind.

I'm not sure about maiden aunts, though; I never had one.

However, insofar as writing oaths goes, ¡t can mean a bit of unnecessary typing.

I believe that it has been confirmed by lab studies that swearing does alleviate pain in some circumstances. I'll try to find the podcast/article where I heard/read this.

[LesPalenik]

So does Ben-Gay.

[Rand47]

And so the word parsing and lawyering begins.

Here’s a suggestion. Use only language that we’d use with our six-year-old daughters and grand daughters.  If that includes scatological and crude anitomical references, well then (as the Church Lady would say), “Isn’t that special!”   

Rand

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

https://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21735577-new-book-explores-subtle-and-strategic-art-swearing-power-profane-lang

Foul play

The power of profane language
A new book explores the subtle and strategic art of swearing

IN THESE potty-mouthed times, when certain world leaders sling profanity about with abandon, many observers naturally lament the debasement of speech. But instead of clutching pearls, why not find a silver lining? Learning more about when, how and why people swear offers insight into everything from the human brain to a society’s taboos. Trash talking even affords some real physical and social benefits, as Emma Byrne argues in “Swearing Is Good for You”.

[Jeremy Roussak]

I did, second one says:

"•Robust discussion is to be encouraged but offensive language is not. That is not intended to be a ban on all language which to which anyone might take exception - we are not maiden aunts - but consideration of whether the words used would be spoken in a face-to-face conversation in a home will give some indication of what is acceptable."

My take from all this is that using "ass" is wrong, but using "shit" is fine, according to your (different) actions to the two posters who used the terms. The first was "banned - worthy", the second was not. To me, "shit" is more offensive than "ass", but what do I know...

Paolo, this is getting silly. Read my post. It's quite clear that my warning had absolutely nothing to do with language.

If you really want a defined guideline, I'll don my moderator's cap and tell you that any word I have used in a post (other than someone else's quoted text, of course) is axiomatically acceptable. Outwith that range of vocabulary, you take your online life in your hands. 

Can we get back to discussing politics and "art" now? Or even (perish the thought) photography?

Jeremy

[KLaban]

And so the word parsing and lawyering begins.

Here’s a suggestion. Use only language that we’d use with our six-year-old daughters and grand daughters.  If that includes scatological and crude anitomical references, well then (as the Church Lady would say), “Isn’t that special!”   

Rand

I seem to remember Michael saying with regards to language and the acceptability of profanity that LuLa is a site intended for adults, not children. Perhaps that's changed?

[texshooter]

Sometimes profanity gets a point across faster than politeness.

[Rob C]

And so the word parsing and lawyering begins.

Here’s a suggestion. Use only language that we’d use with our six-year-old daughters and grand daughters.  If that includes scatological and crude anitomical references, well then (as the Church Lady would say), “Isn’t that special!”   

Rand

Quite a trick, having a six-year-old daughter and granddaughter!

I must have made some serious errors of judgement along the line...

;-)