TexasCHLforum.com

I've had to edit a number of posts recently that contained abbreviated profanity. STOP NOW! I'm not going to waste time editing them again, I'll just delete the post in total and Moderators are instructed to do the same.

Chas.

Thanks! Can we assume that includes using alpha+asterisk substitutes?

Charles, I agree with your stance. There should be a setting inside of phpBB that allows you to intercept defined words and substitute another word for it.

PBratton wrote:Charles, I agree with your stance. There should be a setting inside of phpBB that allows you to intercept defined words and substitute another word for it.

Thanks Charles.

PBratton:
I think folks should follow the rules and not use that verbiage. Why should it have to be substituted?
I personally don't want to see that either. The words may not be there, but the profane thought is.

People should be responsible for their actions.

LabRat

PBratton wrote:Charles, I agree with your stance. There should be a setting inside of phpBB that allows you to intercept defined words and substitute another word for it.

There is a setting, although it is imperfect. That is why I can post that I have an M.S. degree but not a bull degree.

puma guy wrote:Thanks! Can we assume that includes using alpha+asterisk substitutes?

Absolutely! Anything that gets the message across is prohibited.

Chas.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:

puma guy wrote:Thanks! Can we assume that includes using alpha+asterisk substitutes?

Absolutely! Anything that gets the message across is prohibited.

Chas.

Thank you Charles for your stance on this. This is just one small, but significant, part of why this is such a great site.

Nice place you have here - thanks for your good judgement.

Absolutely agree! I was very embarrassed recently when I referred a young friend to a web site and she was "bombarded" with really obnoxious language just reading a few posts that she thought she was interested in. I have quit that particular site.

Yes, I agree with all of this. For the record, I have occasionally let something get past my own internal censors. I recently had a post edited for using a 3-letter shorthand acronym to describe something which causes "discomfort in the posterior regions". I wasn't trying to be rude, but I typed it without thinking about it. I didn't take it personally when the post was edited. If deleting the post is what will happen going forward, I am OK with that. I am not trying to push the limits or antagonize the management, so there is no harm no foul from my POV.

I do have a question though...... what about the unintentional double-entendre?

I once was dinged for referring to a certain public figure as the latter half of the word "Jackass".....in other words, a donkey/mule-headed fool. In my understanding of the english language, my usage of that word was the same as that used in the Bible in Numbers 22:21 in the KJV - a reference to the animal, not the body part. Is there ever any leeway to account for the entirely appropriate use of language where the moderator in question doesn't use/perceive language the same way as the poster, but no violation was intended?

In other words, are there some situations where a post like I am describing could be edited instead of deleted?

Hopefully I wasn't one of them, I try to double check my post as sometimes I sort of forget where I'm at when posting.

The Annoyed Man wrote:Yes, I agree with all of this. For the record, I have occasionally let something get past my own internal censors. I recently had a post edited for using a 3-letter shorthand acronym to describe something which causes "discomfort in the posterior regions". I wasn't trying to be rude, but I typed it without thinking about it. I didn't take it personally when the post was edited. If deleting the post is what will happen going forward, I am OK with that. I am not trying to push the limits or antagonize the management, so there is no harm no foul from my POV.

I do have a question though...... what about the unintentional double-entendre?

I once was dinged for referring to a certain public figure as the latter half of the word "Jackass".....in other words, a donkey/mule-headed fool. In my understanding of the english language, my usage of that word was the same as that used in the Bible in Numbers 22:21 in the KJV - a reference to the animal, not the body part. Is there ever any leeway to account for the entirely appropriate use of language where the moderator in question doesn't use/perceive language the same way as the poster, but no violation was intended?

In other words, are there some situations where a post like I am describing could be edited instead of deleted?

I agree with you about "jackass" because it is an animal and that's okay. I also agree with "ass" being a shorthand version of "jackass," but it could be short for something else too. That's the problem.

Chas.

I guess this is coincidental to one of my negative learning experiences. I used the term jackass in a conversation once and the conversation partner stopped talking, walked of and complained about my verbiage.
According to Meriam Webster and other dictionaries the term "jackass" is classified as vulgar and not profane.
I do not, or at least try to not use that term anymore.

Good...

I think this is a good stance. This is one of the few places on the internet that I don't hesitate to refer folks to.

I think of it as a work conversation with mixed company. There may be things I'd say a certain way if I was on the deer lease but if I'm having the same conversation prior to a meeting at work and there are males and females present, I have to exercise my brain and find other ways to get my point accross.

Good work Charles!!!