General discussion
-
CreatorTopic
-
April 7, 2006 at 4:24 am #2195022
Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
Lockedby jardinier · about 18 years ago
While many everyday, socially acceptable words are asterisked out of existence in discussions, when I am waiting for a post to register I am confronted by a banner advertisement which glaringly asks:
“Does your job [b]suck[/b]?”
Personally I find that word — in the context in which it is used here — far more offensive and vulgar than many of the words which are excised from discussions. For example, jd was not allowed to use the word w_h_o_r_e which has been an acceptable word in the English language for centuries, with an etymology tracing it back to several old languages, including Latin.
[Edited for clarification]
Topic is locked -
CreatorTopic
All Comments
-
AuthorReplies
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 4:29 am #3285866
Americanisms
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
We’re a bit stuck with a US censor. I would like to post the recipe for one of my favourite savoury dishes but I suspect that it will be asterisked by the Post Police.
http://www.yourcounty.co.uk/you/archive/recipes/faggots.html
OK, we got the URL through…
-
April 7, 2006 at 4:54 am #3285859
That should be censored
by dmambo · about 18 years ago
In reply to Americanisms
Any recipe consisting of pig’s heart and liver is offensive enough!
Why two of the world’s major religious groups couldn’t even touch it. 🙂
Blecch!!
Enjoy!
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:16 am #3285850
Those same two religious groups
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to That should be censored
are forbidden to eat a bacon sandwich. No god could be that cruel.
(That’s an English Bacon Sandwich with proper back bacon and brown sauce and not that crispy crap served over your side that you can sharpen an edge onto. You [b]have[/b] to put lettuce and tomato with that stuff else you’ll cut the inside of your mouth.)
You guys aren’t big on offal are you?
Saute lambs kidneys with wild mushrooms…
Calves’ liver and smoked back bacon…
Braised stuffed pigs hearts…
Steak and kidney pie…The last one is too much. I’ve got to go and have lunch before I eat my keyboard.
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:24 am #3285841
sheeps heed an’ stottie cyek
by gadgetgirl · about 18 years ago
In reply to Those same two religious groups
calves foot jelly
potted brawn
livery n’onionsoooh! oooh! and black pud!
pass your keyboard Neil, I’ve eaten mine and I’m still hungry now!
translation of title reply available here:
http://www.thenortheast.fsnet.co.uk/GeordieDictionary.htm
(totally disassociated from NITS ™ for the purposes of clarification within the UK)
😀
GG
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:33 am #3285836
Oh that goes well,
by old guy · about 18 years ago
In reply to sheeps heed an’ stottie cyek
with my breakfast I’m eating… where is the vomit, uh emesis, basis or at least the emoticon????
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:33 am #3285835
Warning! Intense nostalgia trip!
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to sheeps heed an’ stottie cyek
My Dad used to make pig brawn, especially in the lead-up to Christmas, and when I was big enough to see over the top of the table he would let me help pick the bits of meat off the boiled head and pick the whiskers off with my little fingers.
Happy days!
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:20 am #3285705
Mexican food
by tryten · about 18 years ago
In reply to Those same two religious groups
Maybe you havent had REAL mexican food. And anywhere in the U.S. north of Houston does not serve real mexican food, they serve that americanized garbage. I am talking about the good stuff with tounge, tripe and all the mixin’s. I have had some REAL Tamales where My buddies mom boiled up a cows head and used the meat and other remnants as the filler. That was the best tamale ever.
Ron White said it best when he was making fun of Cincinatti for claiming to be the Chili capital of the world. “Hell Juan can kick your a$$ with a goat and an onion…”
-
April 11, 2006 at 1:05 am #3285529
*drools*
by douglashead · about 18 years ago
In reply to Those same two religious groups
mmmm Steak and Kidney Pie!!!! WANT 😀
although I must admit my favourit dish is Lamb’s fry, or for those outside of Aus, or uneducated Lambs Liver! So good!
Cows tongue is also quite nice *nods*
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:09 am #3285855
Okay..that’s funny
by maecuff · about 18 years ago
In reply to Americanisms
is it wrong that I found that hilarious? Am I insensitive? Nope..my sister is gay and that doesn’t bother me, so I guess it IS just funny. I don’t know if I’d eat it or not.
as far as censorship goes..what makes the f*cking difference?
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:30 am #3285837
Well, that explains a lot
by old guy · about 18 years ago
In reply to Americanisms
No wonder it’s hard to understand you guys sometimes. Eating stuff like that has to have some kind of terrible effect on a person. Yecchhh. 🙂
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:55 am #3285690
that is
by Anonymous · about 18 years ago
In reply to Americanisms
very disgusting. what the hell are ya’ll eating over there?
-
April 7, 2006 at 9:07 am #3285682
Proper food
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to that is
That was a recipe for something which, in UK terms, is pretty mild! Liver, hearts and fat pork simmered in gravy1 What’s wrong with that?
Check out haggis. It’s made from the bits of sheep that don’t look like meat.
Full-on haggis has [b]everything[/b] in it.
http://www.smart.net/~tak/haggis.html#four
Weeny Americanised haggis has “normal” meat with just the liver added for flavour. It isn’t even cooked in the stomach!
http://www.smart.net/~tak/haggis.html#one
Oh God! I’ve just realised that we might be eating one of Marky Marks old “friends”…
-
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 4:32 am #3285865
Anyway, you Aussies should bloody talk
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
with [b]that[/b] advert…
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:57 am #3285820
Touche :D
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to Anyway, you Aussies should bloody talk
However both Tony Blair and John Howard got some mileage out of that joke when Blair addressed our parliament on March 27.
-
April 11, 2006 at 1:10 am #3285528
:p hehe
by douglashead · about 18 years ago
In reply to Anyway, you Aussies should bloody talk
I will when I get a job 😀 actually yeah my current job does suck! I would much rather be something other than a job hunter.
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:14 am #3285853
I always knew Neil was into f a g g o t s!!!
by gadgetgirl · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
couldn’t resist, sorry.
And I wholeheartedly agree with you re the Ozzie Ad. My mum doesn’t like it either. AND it has TWO swear words in it. Being strict chapel, d’you realise I was hauled over the coals by Ma at the age of 28 for actually saying “damn and blast” within her earshot?!!! 🙁
Jules – that word also makes me cringe, but for a totally different reason. The reason you find it offensive is not the word itself; it is the context in which it is used. With me, however, it reminds me when I was taking my friends little girl and my daughter out one day, not realising that my friends daughter transposed her “F’s” with her “S’s”….. :0
yup. she did. In the middle of the shopping centre, age 2, she screamed at the top of her voice that she “wanted a suck of her dummy…” :8}
Why doesn’t a gaping great six foot hole open up and swallow you when you need it to?!
(Mae – I can hear you laughing from here! You were supposed to be sympathising!)
😀
GG
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:19 am #3285848
I thought it was JD…
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to I always knew Neil was into f a g g o t s!!!
at least by recent posts, anyway.
😀
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:25 am #3285840
wahey! telepathy works!
by gadgetgirl · about 18 years ago
In reply to I thought it was JD…
well, at least across the UK ……..
:p
GG
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:21 am #3285847
GG
by maecuff · about 18 years ago
In reply to I always knew Neil was into f a g g o t s!!!
I swear..that sound you heard? It was a sympathetic chuckle..
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:26 am #3285838
did you get a medal
by gadgetgirl · about 18 years ago
In reply to GG
from your side-stepping course?
😀
GG
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:42 am #3285829
No..
by maecuff · about 18 years ago
In reply to did you get a medal
I did, however, get a certificate of achievement..
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:09 am #3285718
The REAL question is
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to I always knew Neil was into f a g g o t s!!!
are they INTO him? :0
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:24 am #3285842
JD uses language like that?!?
by dmambo · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
Now who on earth could he have been talking about with a word like that?
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:20 am #3285758
Really
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to JD uses language like that?!?
I have no idea what he is going on about! (where is that blasted “innocent” emoicon when I need it??? X-( )
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:42 am #3285747
Innocent…
by jellimonsta · about 18 years ago
In reply to Really
While I am not sure you should be allowed to use the ‘innocent’ emoticon JD, I do wonder why there is no ‘angel’?
How hard would it be for them to create one when the 0 : ) are used in succession? 0:) would be a good ‘innocent’ emoticon in my opinion. 😀 -
April 7, 2006 at 7:43 am #3285745
Probably just a misspelling somewhere along the line
by dmambo · about 18 years ago
In reply to Really
You do have an occasional misspelled word in your posts. I think I remember you once said something about not being sure of the location of your EX and you meant to type “my kids’ mother is a-where?”, but you just fat-fingered it.
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:07 am #3285721
sniffing glue?
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Probably just a misspelling somewhere along the line
I would NEVER say anything bad about my boys female parental unit! I am MUCH too nice for that! 😀
I did let ONE thing slip in front of the boys before. They were talking about their female parental units cat was having problems with its ears and they thought it might be “mites”. It just slipped out “probably just from listening to your mother”. (oops!)
Through the tears of laughter, they told me I wasn’t nice….. ;\
and I usually do so good at not saying anything bad or negative about her when the boys are around too……..
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:13 am #3285711
JD, sometimes you can’t
by old guy · about 18 years ago
In reply to sniffing glue?
keep the truth from just bursting out. 🙂
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:32 am #3285702
And you are surprised….
by jellimonsta · about 18 years ago
In reply to sniffing glue?
her ‘kitty’ has a parasite infestation problem?! ;\
-
April 7, 2006 at 10:04 am #3286332
actually
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to And you are surprised….
no, no I am not.
That was why I gave her anything she wanted to get her out ASAP. Didn’t want her knocked up or bringing something back to me!
funny the way I mentioned it to the boys, really sad when looking at the reality like this….. Karma is kicking her ass hard!
-
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:26 am #3285839
Jardinier, I hope that you
by old guy · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
don’t pass out or that the world doesn’t stop but I agree with you completely on this one!!! :O
Ideally I wish there were a lot of words that weren’t used in communication but there’s going to be and I can dismiss them for myself. But I do agree sometimes it seems like there is a double standard.
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:35 am #3285833
by gadgetgirl · about 18 years ago
In reply to Jardinier, I hope that you
oooh. Did the world just stop for a second there?
Now.
I hope you all (y’all, sorry Mae!) mean this contextually. Because as a legitimate word, it’s extremely useful. Go on, try it. Describe how to use a straw without using it. I mean, try explaining it to a youngster, in their language. Not technically, but in ways in which a youngster would understand.
Now.
Try doing that without using the word “suck”!!!
(ok, jd, ok – you can think of something other than a straw…….
ye gods. predictable.)
And while you’re on, OG, do you have anything against the word “gay”? That has also rattled my cage, contextually. We have a dance here called the Gay Gordons……well, it used to be. I haven’t danced it in years, as I think no-one knows what to call it anymore for fear of causing offence to homosexuals.
(sorry, if I offended, jd) (!)
]:)
GG
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:57 am #3285819
GG,
by old guy · about 18 years ago
Without going into depth on my personal views about homosexuality, yes, it does kind of stink that the word gay and rainbows signs have been twisted/turned into a totally different context and that yes, some people are afraid to uspset or offend the homosexual community. I’m not sure if you read the PC thead where I said something to the effect that I am tired of trying to be politically correct and someone said it sounded like I had PTSD-PC…
Does that answer your question without opening up a can of worms? ?:|
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:19 am #3285808
Political correctness
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to GG,
Would you believe that several years ago I got so steamed up by the absurdity and constraints imposed by political correctness that I SERIOUSLY considered starting a political party called “The Politically Incorrect Party.”
I called at the office of my local Federal member and asked his secretary the procedure for starting a political party. She and another staff member strongly advised me against starting a small independent party because it might be taken over and used by people with a different agenda.
This had already happened with the One Nation Party which had been set up by Pauline Hanson.
I was advised to join one of the major parties. Note [b]ONE[/b] of the major parties which I thought was pretty cool coming from the secretary of the Federal MP who resided over the second safest conservative seat in the country.
Well I joined the Labor Party but I am still on good terms with Dr Brendan Nelson MP and his staff despite us being on opposite sides of the political spectrum.
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:24 am #3285803
Do you think there
by old guy · about 18 years ago
In reply to Political correctness
would be enough of us at TR to start a World Politically Incorrect Party? I would be one of the first ones up!!!
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:40 am #3285793
oh, OG – :8}
by gadgetgirl · about 18 years ago
In reply to Do you think there
you’d be……[i]what?[/i]
:0
]:)
GG
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:45 am #3285787
Ok, I know I’m slow sometimes
by old guy · about 18 years ago
In reply to oh, OG – :8}
but what did I miss?
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:53 am #3285778
Neil, babz, over here…..
by gadgetgirl · about 18 years ago
In reply to oh, OG – :8}
please explain, in nice clear, concise English what is wrong with this sentence to OG
“I would be one of the first ones up!!!”
I know this is not the normal translatory service you provide, but under the circumstances, I think you should explain this to him, being a male, as he is…..I’d make him blush – again!
Cheers, marra!
😡
GG
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:57 am #3285777
Oh….
by old guy · about 18 years ago
In reply to oh, OG – :8}
never mind. :8} I got it now. Gee you have to be specific with a sentence… ;\
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:37 am #3285749
FIRST isn’t what matters
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Do you think there
duration, my friend, is the name of the game.
😀
Hey GG, did I mention I used to be a long distance runner? ]:)
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:55 am #3285689
Sorry….
by jellimonsta · about 18 years ago
In reply to FIRST isn’t what matters
but you set yourself up for it JD.
[q]…did I mention I used to be a long distance runner?[/q]
Those sheep are pretty fast aren’t they? :p
-
April 7, 2006 at 9:45 am #3286347
Jell my man, your not keeping up with the conversation
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to FIRST isn’t what matters
Jell my man, your not keeping up with the conversation.
That was Marky Mark that said one day someone was his “lamb”. Not only does he admit he likes sheep, but he like them YOUNG! :0
-
April 7, 2006 at 11:59 am #3286276
Apologies JD
by jellimonsta · about 18 years ago
In reply to FIRST isn’t what matters
I do now recall M_a_r_k’s affinity for livestock. :p
I beseech you sir and bid you good day! 😀
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:33 am #3285752
twisted/turned?
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to GG,
you are even being politically correct in your description about having to be politically correct.
These terms have been perverted and distorted.
Who knew that “The Flintstones” was a gay advocate group? :0
While running around calling someone a f4g is intentionally hateful, if the INTENT to offend is not there it just shows the ignorance of the offended to jump all over it.
I can’t tell you how many times I have been called a stubborn german over the last three decades. I never too offense to this, because it was true. B-)
When you open a can of worms, go fishing! 😀 F’em if they can’t take a joke!
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:27 am #3285755
not technically?
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
so I can’t tell them that you are actually lowering the atmospheric presure inside the straw, so that the greater pressure on the rest of the surface is greater and it actually pushes the liquid up the straw? Chemistry class was always one of my favs in school! 😀 Physical science was a close second.
As for “the word”, as long as it is only performed by a womanm, there is absolutely nothing wrong it it and should actually be encouraged! B-)
( offending, not you too? 🙁 I expect it from mae, but not you? :_| )
~~looks for broken heart emoicon~~
-
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:45 am #3285826
Would you bluddy well believe
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
that in a post I just made to “Almost Friday Yuk” I used the VERY COMMON AND SOCIALLY ACCEPTABLE PHRASE:
t_i_t for tatand the friggin thing asterisked out t_i_t
The first definition given in a dictionary for this VILE, OBSCENE word is:
“any of various small songbirds esp. of the family Paridae.”
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:54 am #3285822
-
April 7, 2006 at 5:55 am #3285821
i even didn’t notice
by rob mekel · about 18 years ago
In reply to Would you bluddy well believe
the * in the t_i_t for tat
But to humiliate/discriminate those lovely birds, shame on them ]:)
Rob
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:06 am #3285816
The reason you didn’t notice
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to i even didn’t notice
was because I had EDITED the post.
When it first came up the title was: *** for tat.
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:05 am #3285768
and you didn’t mentioned that
by rob mekel · about 18 years ago
In reply to The reason you didn’t notice
in the original t_i_t for tat post!
Shame on you!Rob
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:07 am #3285814
and….
by gadgetgirl · about 18 years ago
In reply to Would you bluddy well believe
boob for tat sounds all wrong, dunnit??!!
I had trouble when someone on here first asked my height…..I tried to reply with my normal answer, but had to put “just over five foot”….my normal reply contains the word “f*a*g”
i.e. five foot an’ a f*a*g paper, meaning a cigarette paper…..I’ll just settle for being a short arse, then!
😀 :p
GG
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:35 am #3285795
Wierd that it allows
by stargazerr · about 18 years ago
In reply to and….
words like boob and arse …
Of course TR wont know about yada yada since they are happier with blah blah 😀
]:)
Edit: [b]Rephrased[/b] ;\
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:42 am #3285790
care :0 ful…….
by gadgetgirl · about 18 years ago
In reply to Wierd that it allows
SG rephrase that answer immediately!
GG
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:46 am #3285786
Hey, I left it
by old guy · about 18 years ago
In reply to care :0 ful…….
alone. I didn’t say anything this time…
-
April 7, 2006 at 6:48 am #3285782
Although they wouldn’t admit it
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to Wierd that it allows
our Stateside friends have a bit of a cultural breast taboo and that’s why t:t is asterisked out. Boob, I suspect, being not “American” is missed just like “Arse”.
It’s all a bit schitzophrenic, as well; topless bathing and public breast feeding are frowned upon yet their entertainment industry couldn’t function without push-up bras and silicone enhancements (so long as you don’t show the business end of the boob!!).
An example: a couple of years ago, Janet Jackson (nearly) flashed a nip in an obviously rehearsed “risque” accidental disrobing moment during the Superbowl and the public reaction was one of incandescent fury.
That wouldn’t happen here. We have Page Three.
It [b]certainly[/b] wouldn’t happen in Oz!
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:02 am #3285772
Screwy priorities
by alangeek · about 18 years ago
In reply to Although they wouldn’t admit it
Yeah, this country (US) has some really screwed up priorities. Kids can play games or watch shows or movies that demonstrate hundreds of ways to maim, cripple, kill, mutilate, and dismember people, but heaven forbid they should catch a momentary glimpse of a backside or a breast, let alone two people caring for one another. Near-rape and violence are more tolerated even. What’s wrong with people here?
-
April 9, 2006 at 6:31 pm #3105187
We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to Screwy priorities
As Colonel Kurtz said of we Americans in Vietnam — They can burn women and children, but they can?t write the word f_u_c_k on their helmets. The unfortunate fact is that Christianity has been at war with the human body for a long, long time. And we wonder why so many of us are so screwed up.
-
April 9, 2006 at 7:37 pm #3105174
epw- Obviously stupid and wrong
by x-marcap · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
Christianity revels in the carnal relations of man and wife… You have projected a false image, and many people who don’t understand the reasons why. If you ever believe, I can educate you, but that is an unlikely situation…
I suspect you will spend your time in Hell, alone and cooking…
-
April 9, 2006 at 8:19 pm #3105164
tjsanko — not that there is any point
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
in trying to have a rational discussion with you, but nowhere in Scripture is there any reference to: “revelling in the carnal relations of man and wife.”
The Church as an institution — especially the mother church, the Roman Catholic Church — has quite deliberately instilled guilt about sex into the minds of its flock so that they will feel the need to confess and be “saved.”
-
April 9, 2006 at 10:00 pm #3105150
you have mistaken
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
being a punk with a dirty mouth and the way a business would choose to have people act while using their services.
From your responses, it is clear that you are new to the whole “working for a living”, and think that you can say or do anything, anytime, anyplace.
I see many hard lessions in store for you, and if you don’t learn from them soon, lots of being underemployed. I know there is no place for a punk with a dirty mouth at any of the tech places I have worked, and if you really have found a place that doesn’t mind, you had better pray to the god you don’t believe in that you never lose it. You are so screwed up because you don’t have a core value that tells you what is proper behavior in a professional setting. You are also so screwed up that you can’t even tell the difference between TR not wanting a bunch of dirty mouthed punks being different that the anti-christian hate your spewing.
After you work in the field a few years, and get fired a few times for being a punk, you will either learn a lession or you will feel you got fired because someone was picking on you.
Another word come to mind. TROLL. Should have seen it in your posts earlier, because it is clear you only talk tough on-line and not in the office.
You prove the old saying that “IT Consultant” is just a fancy term for “Unemployed”.
-
April 10, 2006 at 9:50 am #3264426
Read it! Haven’t you heard of the song of songs.
by x-marcap · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
Obviously, you seem to not realize there is one whole book on that subject. Not to mention the other mentions of sexuality in the bible. If you had read it you might know about it…
-
April 10, 2006 at 12:14 pm #3264340
TJ
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
my reply was intended for epw, sorry for not being clear on who I was addressing! My fault. :8}
-
April 10, 2006 at 8:54 pm #3285571
Oh Sure JD ….
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
that photo you chose to represent yourself is very professional. Looks like you just finished the last case of Bud and are looking for a convenient spot to relieve yourself.
-
April 11, 2006 at 1:22 am #3285525
The Song of Songs
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
while being obviously erotic, is NOT a source of doctrine or supposed to describe normal marital sex.
It is a POEM — get it? Extravagant imagery is quite normal in a POEM.
See 1 Corinthians Chapter 7 for St Paul’s teaching on marriage, which DOES NOT in any way accentuate carnality.
-
April 11, 2006 at 5:30 am #3285492
glad you like it “epw”
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
A person smiling while in a halloween costume out with his family makes him look intoxicated? If you say so.
Back ground on pic.
Right at the tail of my divorce (of her choosing) so this was my way of informing friends at the halloween party I go to every year that we were no longer together. I am gleefully covered in blood holding a severed head. That way the ex-wife was still able to attend the party, (in spirt at least!)
There is nothing in that pic that will trip a sensor for people who browse this page from work, but your uneducated forms of communications will.
When you learn to communicate without having to resort to shock value, some people just might take you seriously. Someday. Go back to your trailer part where they find you amusing. Adults are having a discussion.
-
April 11, 2006 at 3:04 pm #3286561
JD, sorry to hear . . .
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
you’ve had those difficulties. Actually, it’s very hard to tell what is going on in the picture because it’s small. In any case, while we seem to disagree on just about everything, I hope you can accept my sincere wishes that the resolution of the difficulties prove beneficial to all concerned.
-
April 12, 2006 at 5:10 am #3286434
You twist things badly. You aren’t even good at twisting the truth.
by x-marcap · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
Paul even lamented he didn’t have a believing wife.
Let?s try this from a different tact. Let us say that Paul was against promiscuity and perversion.
Peter was married, as were many others of the disciples. In Fact, all except Paul were married.
The nature of man is as Paul directed to be married. “It is better to marry than to burn.”
Paul was writing to widows, but in this it applies to all of us.One of the best examples of husbands in the bible was a man who would work for years to get the woman he wanted. (14 years for Rachel). There were many children descended from these two people.
Since you are trying to take Paul?s writing out of context, you must have a problem with the fact that people of faith will state categorically that it is immoral to be promiscuous, or to practice abominations of perversion? You may have a personal problem with that viewpoint. Or, are you a pervert? Knowing your writing, you have a dog in the hunt. Are you immoral or a pervert, Julian?
As a Christian, I have this strange perversion, I am disobedient. I should shake off the dust from my shoes and let you go to hell on your own… I sometimes waste time and effort on people like you? I think that after you start to understand, you will believe.
The problem is I waste my time and resources, ?casting pearls before swine?.
I repent my efforts.
-
April 13, 2006 at 4:55 am #3103676
tj
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to We?ve mistaken prudishness for morality
go crawl back under your rock.
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:03 am #3285771
What is wierd Neil
by stargazerr · about 18 years ago
In reply to Although they wouldn’t admit it
they miss ass too … which is definately american. Oh did I say Ass?? I meant blah blah ;\
]:)
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:07 am #3285766
What’s wrong with “tit”?
by m_a_r_k · about 18 years ago
In reply to Although they wouldn’t admit it
Every mammal has tits. Every male of every mammal species has tits. Every female of every mammal species has tits. It’s been that way for millions of years. It’s a fact of life. Why would TR have a problem with this? No subhuman mammal would survive more than a few days after birth if tits didn’t exist. Who does TR think they are for thinking they can change the laws of nature by expunging tits from every mammal?
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:08 am #3285764
I never knew
by stargazerr · about 18 years ago
In reply to What’s wrong with “tit”?
that mammals have so many …………….. asterisks …. 😀
]:)
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:13 am #3285762
Sometimes TR is stupid
by m_a_r_k · about 18 years ago
In reply to What’s wrong with “tit”?
In reference to my previous post:
“***” = “t_i_t”
Udder nonsense. haha Get it… udder… t_i_t. :^0 I wonder if “udder” will also get nuked by the uptight TR censor.
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:14 am #3285761
Let’s try this one
by m_a_r_k · about 18 years ago
In reply to Sometimes TR is stupid
teat. In case I get asterisked out again, t_e_a_t.
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:27 am #3285756
You will
by stargazerr · about 18 years ago
In reply to Sometimes TR is stupid
provide us with the reports of your expirements, wont you ?? ;\
]:)
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:59 am #3285731
Think about it Neil
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Although they wouldn’t admit it
Do you call it breast feeding or t_t feeding? why? Because breast is not sexual or crude. t_t is intentionally both.
Will the world COME to an end if we see or say t_t? No, but the session might wrap up quicker if we do! ]:)
If you were having a discussion with more concervative people, which word would YOU choose to use? Your talking to your MOTHER, would you say breast or t_t? If NOT t_t, why?
That is the answer to your question and rant.
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:05 am #3285726
I wanted to say something the other day
by stargazerr · about 18 years ago
In reply to Think about it Neil
and TR asterisked out a perfectly innocent word like competition [b]c_u_m[/b] fun
Well, innocent when I used it anyway …. 😀
]:)
-
April 9, 2006 at 10:38 pm #3264630
doCUMent
by mjwx · about 18 years ago
In reply to I wanted to say something the other day
I found that jem when every email containing do[b]C_U_M[/b]ent or do[b]C_U_M[/b]entum got caught in the spam filter.
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:11 am #3285713
But what about in reference to animals?
by m_a_r_k · about 18 years ago
In reply to Think about it Neil
A “breast” is commonly used to mean a person’s chest. But not an animal’s chest. A cow has teats/udders nowhere near its chest. You don’t milk a cow’s breasts. You milk its teats, aka t_i_t_s.
I guess I agree that spelling it as t_i_t may be construed as slightly offensive. And teat is probably the more biologically correct spelling. But if it sounds the same, how does anyone know if you’re being rude and crude when referring to those glands?
-
April 7, 2006 at 9:24 am #3286352
pronouced differently
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to But what about in reference to animals?
teats – ‘tEt
t_t
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English — more at TEAT
1 : TEAT
[b]2 usually vulgar [/b]: BREAST — usually used in pluralmean the same, but not the same intent.
Same as the different “slang” terms for the other mommie parts and THE male organ. some are good for anywhere, others are only used in porn production or by the crude and “uncouth”.
B-)
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:17 am #3285708
I would use them all when talking to my mother
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to Think about it Neil
She is a fine, broad-minded old lady. Were I discussing breastfeeding, that would be the word I used. When discussing, say, my cousin Jackie, one of the larger members of my family, I could not other than say “Our Jackie’s t:ts are nearly coming out of her dress again – someone should tell her she’s really a dress size 30 and not a 22” and Mum would agree with me (and not call me up for bad language).
Cultural differences, my man… 😀
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:29 am #3285703
Yep
by m_a_r_k · about 18 years ago
In reply to I would use them all when talking to my mother
I’d rather avoid saying t_i_t, aka teat, in the presence of females or even another guy I don’t know that well. One time my dog had an infection of his teat gland. The vet was female. I don’t know of a politically correct word for a teat gland so I had to say the word to her. I couldn’t say that there was something wrong with the dog’s breast b/c she would have thought I was talking about his chest. However, in referencing this same condition about a human female, I would have used the word breast, not teat. I wouldn’t have dared to tell a doctor that something is wrong with a woman’s teat. Why is that?
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:59 am #3285685
Cultural differences
by oneamazingwriter · about 18 years ago
In reply to I would use them all when talking to my mother
are genuine, and explaining to one another what we find acceptable is an important area of communication. “Consider the source” isn’t always meant as a put down…it’s an important consideration when sharing with people of different ethnic or national backgrounds.
And Mark, technically the the teat is the nipple (let’s see if that word is allowed) and the breast is the whole ball of wax. For whatever the reason it’s acceptable in this country (USA) to show a large amount of breast as long as the nipple isn’t exposed. But there was a time when it was considered horrible if a woman exposed her ankles.
I can remember when there was a major issure about I Dream of Jeannie because the star showed her navel.edited: typed about instead of amount
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:08 am #3285765
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:47 am #3285743
The original
by oneamazingwriter · about 18 years ago
In reply to The original was :)
was braver! Now it’s nicer and not as much fun! 😀
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:55 am #3285735
People criticising me
by stargazerr · about 18 years ago
In reply to The original
Left, Right and center ….
Hmmmm …. 😀
]:)
-
April 10, 2006 at 5:59 am #3264562
well I like
by rob mekel · about 18 years ago
In reply to People criticising me
the frontal approach. :0
But the left and right can behandled nicely to. :0 🙂 😉
Rob
-
April 7, 2006 at 7:53 am #3285740
not wierd Gazer, logical
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Wierd that it allows
because it goes back to context and intent.
t_i_ts is crude and is always intended as crude.
boobs and or breast are natural, and are nice to behold/beheld. 😀That is where most of this comes in. If your being a rude, crude, intentionally offensive “arse” then you will use words that are intentionally crude in nature.
everyone should allow boobs! no crime there! ]:)
-
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:38 am #3285695
We ain?t seen nothin? yet
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
Welcome to America ? Home of Hypocrites; Land of the Puerile. Home of Bible Thumpers; Land of the Cowed. Home of Political Correctness; Land of the Pure as the Driven Snow (or we?ll close you down.
Does anyone know of a religion-based movement that gained secular power and did not restrict and abuse human rights? Does anyone know of theocracy that did not eventually commit atrocities against non-believers? I propose allowing religions a political voice only in exchange for their registration as political/lobbyist organizations and a complete, permanent surrender of tax-free status.
-
April 7, 2006 at 8:58 am #3285687
Well, we HAVE seen…
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to We ain?t seen nothin? yet
a stupid person run their mouth off, just now.
You are going to compare TR chosing what language they feel is appropreate on THEIR server to a “religious-based movement”?
Go take your meds, idiot.
-
April 8, 2006 at 9:23 am #3286027
Just a symptom of a larger problem
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to Well, we HAVE seen…
Call it the latest ?moral? majority. Or is it the silent majority? I forgot. It seems so much like d?j? vu all over again. Anyone for starting a new Temperance Movement? Or maybe a trial to decide the legality of evolution. How about a rousing chorus of Onward Christian Soldiers? Language is language. Censorship is not appropriate.
-
April 8, 2006 at 12:23 pm #3105472
dumb or just stupid?
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Just a symptom of a larger problem
no one is talking religion here.
no one is talking censorship here.
What IS being talked about is a private company, providing a service to working professionals having the right to decide if there are certain words they feel are not welcome on their private server.
People that feel any deviant language is acceptable to all (like yourself) are always free to start your own private server and talk any way you wish.
Funny, but if I were to say something racist instead of perverted, would you still support that speach? Is censorship still not appropriate?
Note before you make an even more stupid comment, I do not make racist comments and do not support people being able to do so. Not all speach is protected, even in America.
-
April 9, 2006 at 5:59 pm #3105199
Ho Ho Ho?s the Word . . .
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to dumb or just stupid?
Gently off the server
Diddle me doodle me diddle me do
W_h_o_r_e is just a wordGee whiz, with all the right-wing fundamentalist groaning and squealing in America, you can?t blame a guy for missing the difference between w_h_o_r_i_n_g and religion. I?ll tell you what ? I?ll w_h_o_r_e for your baseless afterlife superstition if you?ll w_h_o_r_e for mine.
-
April 9, 2006 at 10:49 pm #3264629
Is censorship appropriate
by mjwx · about 18 years ago
In reply to Just a symptom of a larger problem
I wouldn?t like people using the word W_h_o_r_e, F_u_c_k or S_h_i_t in front of children. Censorship can go to far but that is because some people can?t censor themselves. They ruin it for the rest of us.
I to clarify, good sir am not a Christian. In fact I have once advocated Satanism in favour to Christianity.
And onward Christian soldiers marching off to war!! (sorry but you asked).
-
April 10, 2006 at 5:31 am #3264574
You just went and ruined the image he created
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Is censorship appropriate
Here I was beginning to think that it was almost a prereq that if you were an anti-christian, you HAD to run around talking like you have a third grade education.
You mean to tell me that your religion or lack of it is NOT what determines if your a foul mouthed punk or not? ;\ Learn something new every day! 😀
-
April 10, 2006 at 7:19 am #3264522
Ahem!
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to You just went and ruined the image he created
anti-christian = foul mouthed punk?
Watch it, you $?{%^?$%^ $%!??%$#-##^%$!!
-
April 10, 2006 at 7:37 am #3264506
I’m watching
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Ahem!
but I don’t see much! 😀
Not to mention, you KNOW that was intended only as a direct slam on this id10t known as [b]EPW[/b].
Having someone like THAT on YOUR team really doesn’t do much for the image of the rest of the club, now does it? Maybe you need to revoke his membership privialages? Excommunicate him from the anti-christian fan club? B-)
(do you eat with that mouth? But then again, as GG has shown us, what do you expect from someone that likes “gravy” on their faggots? :0 )
-
April 10, 2006 at 7:44 am #3264502
-
April 10, 2006 at 8:12 am #3264479
Can’t do it Neil…..
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Ahem!
I am to picky about who and what I eat! 😀
Maybe if the names were translated to something that isn’t so blantantly GAY….
Funny how so many words have been ruined by the homosexual movement.
The name “Bob” took the hardest hit here in the states, with “gay bob”. :0
Parents. When naming your kids, think of every bad name that can be made out of the names you choose BEFORE giving it to your kids! Save them a lot of school yard beatings! B-) [i]this has been a public service announcement![/i]
-
April 10, 2006 at 8:38 pm #3285579
I rest my case
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to You just went and ruined the image he created
By the way, I’m also the anti-Christ.
-
April 11, 2006 at 1:18 am #3285527
THE anti-christ
by mjwx · about 18 years ago
In reply to I rest my case
I will have you know that there is no [b]THE[/b] anti-christ only [b]AN[/b] anti-christ and you are most certainly an insult to genuine anti-christs everywhere.
FYI anti-christ’s are anyone who doesn?t follow Christian orthodoxy (as the literal definition of the name would have you believe). The anti-christ is an American concept (Hollywood) and has nothing to do with the beast of revelation (except in perceptions).
-
April 10, 2006 at 8:31 pm #3285581
I thought the children were in bed
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to Is censorship appropriate
I can think of a lot worse things for children then being exposed to off color language, but I agree that we need to be responsible, especially when it comes to children. I don’t think we are dealing with children here, at least not biologically speaking. Thanks for your thoughts.
-
April 11, 2006 at 1:24 am #3285524
theres a difference between
by mjwx · about 18 years ago
In reply to I thought the children were in bed
children seeing violence on TV (be it Rambo or the nightly news) and hearing their parents or close family members swearing their fucking box off. A good parent would ensure their children have good sense of what is right and what is wrong.
-
April 11, 2006 at 3:52 pm #3286552
1? 2? 3?
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to theres a difference between
1? 2? 3?
Speaking of children?s welfare, did you know this? — In the world today, on each and every day of each and every year, a child starves to death or dies from hunger related diseases every three seconds. 1 2? 3? there goes one. 1? 2? 3? and another 1? 2? 3? and another 1 2? 3? one more???.
And what is the response of our government, the ?Christian values? people in power in America? The silence is deafening isn?t it.
1?2?3? another child 1?2?3? and another. While the ?family values? Republicans plough hundreds of billions to the wealthiest Americans, while they pour hundreds of billions into Iraq, and hundreds more into our war machine, remember – 1? 2 ? 3? there goes another.
While the ?Christian? right fights against birth control, reproductive choice and AIDS vaccines; while it wastes our time and money on futile attempts to outlaw all things sexual outside of marriage between one man and one woman; while it rails against homosexuality and vilifies its opponents, remember – 1? 2? 3? another child gone.
The farcical tragedy of America?s ?family values? Republicans and ?Christian? right is that they are even less Christian than I am.
1 2 3 1 2 3 1 2 3 ……………………… -
April 12, 2006 at 4:48 am #3286439
RTFM, It isn’t the governments business to feed people.
by x-marcap · about 18 years ago
In reply to theres a difference between
RTFM. The U.S. Constitution has no provisions for the welfare state.
We have no obligation to share tax revenue with those who don’t belong to that group of people who didn’t generate the taxes in the first place whether they are citizens of the USA or not.
The purpose of taxes should be to defend and protect our citizens, and to create a climate where we can thrive. Welfare is unconstitutional, actually it is extra-constitutional. They made a huge mistake in going beyond “Congress shall make no law” in the first amendment…
“No man’s life, Liberty, or property is safe while the legislature is in session…”
-
April 12, 2006 at 6:33 am #3286407
Rollover Beethoven
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to theres a difference between
— We have no obligation to share tax revenue with those who don’t belong to that group of people who didn’t generate the taxes in the first place whether they are citizens of the USA or not. —
This is the face of American-style Christianity that would have Jesus rolling in the sepulcher. Can I get an amen for hypocrisy? I believe I can rest my case.
-
April 12, 2006 at 10:31 am #3075546
Welfare is wrong.
by x-marcap · about 18 years ago
In reply to theres a difference between
I do support some indigent people through a religious based charity. This I give willingly.
I don’t think you (as a welfare recipient) have the right to take my money to support your life. If you try to just take money from my wallet I get to resist you in defense of my property.
In a like manner, people are stealing from me, and they use the power of the government to help them steal. That is wrong. No government should be in Welfare under the US constitution.
-
April 12, 2006 at 8:17 pm #3103761
I didnt raise the issue of welfare.
by mjwx · about 18 years ago
In reply to theres a difference between
But, I believe that everyone be them rich or poor has the right to an equal start in life (see the Australian concept of a “fair go”) once given this however, its up to them to make something of themselves.
Poor parents (see the definition of an ?Aussie Battler?) quiet often don?t have the money to send their children to a college or university even if they have high grades. So I believe that such people should not be reduced to a life of low paying work because they were born into it. Managing full time work (working an unqualified low paying job) and study is difficult especially if you are studying to get a good job (if you are studying for a promotion suck it up). Government should assist tertiary students (especially those who’s families can afford the fee’s) if for no other reason then to create an educated work force which in itself is an economic benefit.
Secondly a bloke who gets laid off or made redundant is down on his luck. This is the kind of person who should benefit from the dole, receive income assistance until he gets another job (within reasonable time and job market permitting). I have no patience for dole-bludgers, repeat NO patience for dole-bludgers.
-
April 12, 2006 at 8:25 pm #3103754
RE: it isnt the govts responsability to feed people
by mjwx · about 18 years ago
In reply to theres a difference between
to debate this point (I have made my position clear on welfare in a previous post, so this is not about welfare) I would say that this is one of the key idea behind governance itself. To ensure that food gets from the field into homes where it is needed.
Before the free market governments controlled the movement of food completely. This was done to ensure that the fewer people spent time labouring in the fields and more time on improving society (or whatever the ruler decided was important). The government still has a hand in the movement of food from the farms to your plate but now its assisted by market forces as well.
If governments didn?t take responsibility for feeding people at some point throughout history we would still be fighting each other over food like the did in Somalia not so long ago. Feeding the masses was an important step in improving government (as an concept not individual governments).
-
April 15, 2006 at 10:02 am #3287121
TJ ? You can?t have it both ways
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to theres a difference between
I just completed a search of the Bible for the phrases free market, capitalism and private property. You might be surprised to learn that 0 results were returned. There seems to be a real disconnect here. I?m talking about innocent children starving to death unnecessarily and you?re preaching free market ideology. If you want to be a strict free market advocate and allow that government has no role in the economy ? that?s fine. But don?t claim to be a follower of Jesus Christ at the same time. If you want to follow Christ ? that?s also fine. But don?t ascribe sacredness to free market capitalism at the same time. You cannot truly follow Christ and answer the suffering of children with platitudes about the inappropriateness of welfare.
Your contributions to the indigent are admirable. So are all the contributions of all the people who want to make a difference. Unfortunately, even with all this giving, one child dies from starvation or hunger related disease every THREE seconds. Remember, 1, 2, 3,? another child is gone — 1,2, 3?and another?.
As far as our government is concerned, the Republican hypocrites, who currently control the most powerful and (so far) wealthiest nation on earth, have made a career of wrapping themselves in the mantle of Christianity. If they were doing anything other than using Christians for votes, these Republican leaders would be at the forefront of calls and actions to alleviate such mass and unnecessary suffering. It?s clear that lining their own pockets and the pockets of their friends, waging war and preserving power are much more important to them. I can?t imagine Jesus Christ being pleased with these phonies. What I can?t understand is why so many Americans who identify themselves as Christians tolerate this usurpation of their faith.
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 9:10 am #3285681
This is a Friday afternoon fun thread
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to We ain?t seen nothin? yet
Bugger off somewhere else!
Hmmm. That would probably have been stopped by any reasonable UK censor.
-
April 7, 2006 at 10:37 pm #3286125
Oi
by oz_media · about 18 years ago
In reply to This is a Friday afternoon fun thread
What’s going on? WTF is that all aboot?
Piss off…alright, just bugger awf, sling yet ‘ook and get bent.
What WAS that all aboot? Is it for real?
-
April 8, 2006 at 1:36 am #3286112
Nothing life-threatening, Oz
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to Oi
Jules started this thread (a bit OTT for a Friday but that’s what he’s like) which quite rightly became a bit of Friday fun on the various things that do and don’t get past TR’s autocensors.
epw’s small rant seemed a bit out of place so I though I’d test another word on it.
😀
-
-
April 9, 2006 at 6:45 pm #3105185
This person. . . . .
by maxwell edison · about 18 years ago
In reply to We ain?t seen nothin? yet
…must have an absolutely miserable life. Reading a person’s words is a window into that person’s mind. How sad a case this person is.
-
April 9, 2006 at 6:55 pm #3105183
Actually, I’m Having a Ball . . .
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to This person. . . . .
… but thanks for your concern. I’m glad we’re not in the old Soviet Union. Next thing you know, you’d be sizing me up for the loony bin.
-
April 9, 2006 at 10:05 pm #3105147
Won’t end up in the loony bin
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Actually, I’m Having a Ball . . .
A soup kitchen is more like the destination of someone of your obviously limited ability to reason and maintain proper behavior. Consultant, sure you are.
-
April 10, 2006 at 8:33 am #3264465
Consultants….
by onbliss · about 18 years ago
In reply to Won’t end up in the loony bin
I detected “negativism” towards Consultants. So, correct me if I understood wrong.
-
April 10, 2006 at 9:15 am #3264441
onbliss
by jellimonsta · about 18 years ago
In reply to Consultants….
I do not believe JD was not portraying ‘consultants’ in a negative light. I think it was to infer that the use of ‘IT Consultant’ by a majority of TR peers in their ‘job description’ is to mask the fact that they are in fact, unemployed. 😀
[edited to reflect my thoughts, not fact]
-
April 10, 2006 at 9:27 am #3264436
Correcting onbliss
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Consultants….
Not negativism towards Consultants.
I am just refering to this getting used as the title of choice for the unemployed as well. The unemployed don’t wish to state this openly as it makes them less marketable or credible in the eyes of many.
The way this boy has been running his mouth, I don’t see him working in a professional IT shop, let alone being a “consultant”.
Does this clarify my intent? No slam intended towards REAL consultants.
-
-
April 9, 2006 at 7:27 pm #3105176
Well, it seems…
by x-marcap · about 18 years ago
In reply to We ain?t seen nothin? yet
That you have mistaken the Republicans for the Democrats under Clinton. They were the people who killed the people at WACO and at Ruby Ridge… They are the ones who seal the investigations to prevent the people from finding out who ordered the shots to be fired…
Liberals accuse others of their actions, falsely, continually.
-
April 11, 2006 at 4:52 pm #3286540
Who are the killers?
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to Well, it seems…
I?d be willing to bet that the overwhelming majority of people involved with the slaughter at Waco and the murders at Ruby Ridge considered themselves conservative and Christian. This goes all the way from the ones who lit the fires and pulled the triggers, to the ones who gave the orders, to the ones who approved the orders, to the ones who conceived the actions and gave the go ahead.
We all have blood on our hands for these murders and for more killing than we can possibly imagine. Our country, like most countries, has been built on an ocean of blood, much of it innocent blood. It?s high time we accepted this reality; and high time we faced this truth: there is little to be admired in murderers whether they are Democratic murderers or Republican murderers.
-
April 12, 2006 at 5:25 am #3286430
Actually, The people responsible are protected.
by x-marcap · about 18 years ago
In reply to Who are the killers?
They are hiding behind sealed testimony that has been sealed by Bill Clinton for 75 years… Janet Reno said she was responsible, but she was apparently falling on the sword for the person who told the agent, convicted of 2nd degree murder to “Shoot the next peson who walks out that door.” After that tidbid came out, the judge sealed the courtroom, then the judge lowered the charges from 1st degree murder to manslaughter. The jury deliberated for 9 minutes to get a guilty verdict.
Why did the procedings get sealed. Who got protected? That is much bigger scandal than Watergate. People died because of it. The guilty conspirators were let off the hook… You don’t shoot an unarmed woman and her baby because someone tells you to. Not when they were never convicted of a crime.
They were challenging the IRS’s right to exist in court.There was something about an amendment not being ratified properly…
-
April 12, 2006 at 8:34 am #3075591
As American as Apple Pie
by peter warren · about 18 years ago
In reply to Actually, The people responsible are protected.
TJ, I don?t dispute the details you are presenting. Whether it was Bill Clinton, Janet Reno, or some other official, they were government employees who decided they didn?t have to obey the law or honor their oaths to uphold the constitution. However, this is nothing new or unique in America. Politically and economically motivated killing by government and non-government agencies is a well practiced art. Just ask the friends and families of:
* murdered and surviving members of the Black Panthers,
* murdered civil rights workers,
* murdered labor activists,
* innocent victims of lynch mobs and government railroaded executions
* murdered peace and anti-war activists
* countless Africans who were killed as a result of slavery in America
* 10,000,000 native-Americans. -
April 12, 2006 at 11:05 am #3075534
Correct, That has happened in the past. Much of that was evil.
by x-marcap · about 18 years ago
In reply to As American as Apple Pie
It was always wrong. However, I will be more specific than that. The Native Americans including the Crow nation (my wife is a Crow.) that attacked settlers rather than co-existing with them brought it on themselves. That was in retrospect governmental use of force to protect citizens, and or to conquer an opponent in a long bloody war. My wife is also descended from Louis Wetzel, a great Indian killer after his wife (a Crow also) was raped, murdered, and burnt by other Indians. His one son from that marriage survived… He led troops and personally killed thousands of Indians. He was considered “great” in Northern West Virginia, and the County my wife was born in was named after him…
I can say that there have been times when people were killed in vain…
Do you know what slavery is and was like in Africa, you might not be as negative about American Slavery. I have been to Mali, Somalia, and the Sudan. I have seen African slavery, as recently as 1997… Why doesn’t the media get upset over Africans enslaving Africans in abject slavery?
Labor activists may have been just plain stupid. Since my brother has been a Union goo… ah Steward, I know what the unions are like…
Civil rights workers that were murdered should have had their killers tried.
Anti-War activist murdered? Gee, they got their just desserts.(just kidding) I am not pro-violence, but when the time is necessary, use all the force necessary to achieve the necessary results. Custer was a fool he needed 8 times as many men as he had to achieve his objective.
The Black Panthers are a major problem for me. One of the Panthers thought he would Frag me. This is post Vietnam, and he had been warned once before by me. As an officer, I officially didn’t see it. When he continued to use drugs, I had to see it. I told the First Sergeant tell him it is over now, no more drugs… Then he offered me a smoke. (Never offer your commanding officer a hit on a joint. He has to do something then…) He thought the M3 would take care of me. (He threw it in the latrine with me.) I was bringing him up on drug use charges in the Marines. I admit that he missed, and I think they should all be hunted down, and tried… I’d try them for treason first, sedition second, and public health reasons next.
I would admit that I am not quite color blind, to skin tone. My friends, however, look like a melting pot. I had at my last birthday party, 6 Asians, 8 WASPs, 4 Polacks not related to me, 6 Italians, 8 People of Jewish Persuasion, 4 black guys, and 16 people who either are, or could be members of the Crow nation. One of my friends and his kids went on vacation to Disney, and called. He is Black and married to a Puerto Rican gal. They are all great people, and my friends.
I have less in common with my niece who has 4 kids and several husbands at age 23. She and her common law husband should be made to work. They are healthy enough to breed…
The atrocities you mention are regretable, but in the more distant past. Clinton and Reno escaped justice.
-
-
-
April 7, 2006 at 1:13 pm #3286223
Harrison Ford as cubicle jockey!? I can’t fuckin believe it!
by onbliss · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
How come it does not censor the words under the section “Discussions Participated in:” in “My Discussion” page?
Whereas it censors the same words in the actual discussion page? Case of Bug?
-
April 8, 2006 at 12:18 am #3286117
from my late father’s repertoire of, er, jokes
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
If a cow had a wooden t*t, it would have a wooden t*t, wouldn’t it.
As a school teacher, in reference to caning:
“I hit him and I missed, but he died of pneumonia from the breeze.”
-
April 8, 2006 at 12:38 am #3286115
Anyone for
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
mammeries?
BTW, t*t has been fairly acceptable in OZ throughout my life. Boob is a relatively new term.
If one wishes to avoid offending anyone, “bosom” is a pretty safe word to use.
The lass who employs me to maintain her garden has massive “jugs.” In fact when we are eating out at a restaurant, she cannot get close enough to her plate and so places an array of paper napkins covering her bosom area to catch any spilt food.
We have a lot of laughs about her awesome accessories. She is not at all interested in s*x, but I regularly ask her to take good care of them for me in case some day she becomes aware of their most important function (that shouldn’t take much figuring out).
Because I have put on weight from my meds, I have developed accessories that would easily fill a “B” cup.
So I love to boast: “Mine are bigger than yours.”
Well I would love to illustrate this post with a photo, but we know what happened to the LAST photo I posted, don’t we. 😉
-
April 8, 2006 at 1:46 am #3286111
My old Gran
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to Anyone for
generally used the word “nellies” when describing the sort of t*ts possessed by my cousin Jackie i.e. big enough to have their own postcode.
My cousin Jackie is so fat that it takes her over an hour to have a dump – 50 minutes of that just to line her arse up. Tell you! Her car has stretch marks!
-
-
April 8, 2006 at 9:48 am #3286020
What about FUCK
by kevaburg · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
How many egostistic self-righteous idiots hate the word FUCK without knowing what it means?
Because it was used in a social manner that meant it was bad the fact that someone was in jail for reasons of FUCK (For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge) meant that in our “enlightened” society it could not be used.
Since when has “SUCK” been offensive?
-
April 8, 2006 at 10:17 am #3286014
For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge
by neilb@uk · about 18 years ago
In reply to What about FUCK
bollocks! Well, you can fool some of the people all of the time and all of the people some of the time.
The word f_u_c_k is Germanic in origin and has been around for over a thousand years. Very few acronymic words are earlier than a hundred years ago.
If you’re going to barrel in, all guns blazing – “self-righteous idiots” – at least make sure that it’s not [b]you[/b] who comes over as the fuckwit.
As for “suck”, it’s an Americanism and just sounds and looks crap to those of us for whom it isn’t normal usage i.e. Brits like me and Aussies like Jules who started the thread.
Neil 😀
p.s. “fuckwit” is English slang for…well…you can work it out.
-
April 10, 2006 at 12:22 am #3264622
oh well……….
by kevaburg · about 18 years ago
In reply to For Unlawful Carnal Knowledge
I guess I should recommend the sacking of the history professor that explained it to me………
-
-
April 8, 2006 at 9:15 pm #3105367
“suck,, “sucks,” and “sux”
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to What about FUCK
are colloquialisms quite widely in use in Australia.
However these words with the implied meaning would NOT be used in polite company, and in my opinion the word is not appropriate in an advertisement for professional people.
By Australian standards, “Does your job give you the sh*ts?” would probably be regarded as less offensive than “suck.”
-
-
April 9, 2006 at 10:51 pm #3264628
The banner ad in question contained a typo.
by deepsand · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
The offensive word was to have been “*uck.”
We apologize for any distress caused to you and your offspring.
-
April 10, 2006 at 12:19 pm #3264336
What you foul mouthed people forget
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
many IT Professionals come to this IT site FOR professionals from work. What happens when they go to a page, and some foul mouthed punk was “cursing” just because they don’t have the intelligence to support their ideas without the shock value of these words?
Now the net snoopers go off, and someone gets flagged for going to sites that have “inapropreate content” based on company policies.
Is this really what you want? I don’t.
Clean it up and grow up.
Yes, sometimes it is confusing on which word will slide by and which won’t, but that is were intent comes in.
-
April 10, 2006 at 12:29 pm #3264331
The best rule of thumb to use.
by jaqui · about 18 years ago
In reply to What you foul mouthed people forget
For language guidelines, always use language you would want to hear your children use to you.
and remember, children are like tape recorders, it only takes once that you use foul language and they will use it back.
The side benefit of not always using profanity, when you do use it the impact of it is much greater, because you have changed your pattern for that post / discussion.
-
April 10, 2006 at 1:21 pm #3264306
Kids
by jellimonsta · about 18 years ago
In reply to The best rule of thumb to use.
You are right about kids Jaqui. After my wife attempts to aclimate to puppy ownership for a few weeks, I returned home from work one day to hear my 3 yr old daughter proclaim “this frickin’ dog is driving me nuts!!”.
I had to laugh, even though I knew I shouldn’t have. 😀
-
-
April 16, 2006 at 2:19 pm #3105095
I’m glad
by oneamazingwriter · about 18 years ago
In reply to What you foul mouthed people forget
you said that. I have genuinely appreciated the relaxed atmosphere at this site, and the true tolerance that exists here, but there have been times that I have wondered about some of the language, since professional, to me, carries an ability to address matters in a respectful manner. Just as there’s a difference between art and pornography there’s a difference between crudeness and strong expression to get a point across. (Which is my wordy way of agreeing with INTENT). I prefer the astericks. They help to lighten my reading. I am reminded of seeing #!!@** in the comics. Frustration can come across easily without having the exact word spelled out for me.
edit: jd already had to read this thing without the n in reading, and the s in easily, but I figure I will be kinder to any other’s who come along! 🙂
-
April 16, 2006 at 2:50 pm #3105086
and sometimes #!!@**
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to I’m glad
leaves more to the imagination.
If I were to tell you that I would like to #@#$@ your @#$#@ and @#$#@ the #@$@#$@^@#$ while we @#@%$# at the %^#$#, I am sure your imagination would come up with much better than I could crudely state in words! Well, maybe some of the less pure members could…… ;\ [i] (do I need to spell it out? ]:) ) :p
-
April 16, 2006 at 3:34 pm #3105080
Well, let’s put it this way
by oneamazingwriter · about 18 years ago
In reply to and sometimes #!!@**
I know you didn’t invite me for dinner and the movies and a walk in the park afterward. Having it translated would be a little bit more than I need to know! LOL If a child stepped into the room who could read I could just say, “It’s allright, Dear. Mr. jd and I are playing Lady and the Tramp.”
-
April 17, 2006 at 7:41 am #3104977
You forgot
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Well, let’s put it this way
stopping in for an ice cream cone for the walk by the river!
And of course that is exactly what I had in mind! ;\
-
April 17, 2006 at 7:54 am #3104967
Make it chocolate
by oneamazingwriter · about 18 years ago
In reply to You forgot
and you’re on! ROFL 😀
-
April 17, 2006 at 11:02 am #3104909
EVERYBODY knows
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Make it chocolate
there is nothing like [b]Blue Moon[/b] for a walk in the sunset, along the river walk!
(at least you didn’t say vanilla!) :p
-
April 17, 2006 at 2:34 pm #3104108
As soon as
by oneamazingwriter · about 18 years ago
In reply to Make it chocolate
there is a blue moon we will do this thing…agreed?
(maple nut and pistacio are nice, too!)
-
-
-
April 10, 2006 at 2:08 pm #3264295
No sp*cs allowed!
by dr dij · about 18 years ago
In reply to Double standard — hypocrisy at TR
sp*c is a derogatory word for (puerto ricans?)
I was trying to use in the context of a popular cleaning product which is (derogatory word for puerto ricans) and Span, in terms of keeping your computer’s hd or registry system clean.
I didn’t even think of the other context till I went to edit my post and saw **** in it’s place 🙁
-
April 11, 2006 at 4:46 am #3285507
So we can’t mention cute little birdies
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to No sp*cs allowed!
like t*ts, and we can’t refer to a software product called Sp*c and Span.
The stupid thing is that when we encounter one of these words, we soon learn to adjust it so that it will fool the auto-censor, but the meaning remains as clear as ever.
In fact if anything it DRAWS ATTENTION to the illict word.
You may have missed a thread I started some time ago referring to another website which asterisked out the word “bitch,” correctly defined in any dictionary as a female dog.
And yet TR allows “bugger” which can refer to sodomy or bestiality or more descriptively — and this is also in the dictionary — anal intercourse.
Well I’ll see if this lot gets through.
-
April 11, 2006 at 4:02 pm #3286549
Do you really?
by itdesperado · about 18 years ago
In reply to So we can’t mention cute little birdies
I’m sorry, I know I’m only new here, but I do have to ask this. Do you go looking for sites & forums that have asteriked out any word and then go to a dictionary and see if it bears another meaning and then start a thread about it?
-
April 11, 2006 at 7:47 pm #3286525
Yes indeed, you are new here
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to Do you really?
Hopefully you will learn some manners before you next make a sarcastic post to a long-standing member.
By the way, I distrust anyone who blocks the option to “Send private message.” What are you afraid of?
-
April 11, 2006 at 10:54 pm #3286500
Sarcasm? Nah, curiosity
by itdesperado · about 18 years ago
In reply to Yes indeed, you are new here
Blocked private messages, I actually completely forgot about updating profile. What’s there to be afraid of? I just found it amusing to stumble upon a thread on an IT forum about asterisked words. So don’t turn everything into a personal attack, it was just a bit of fun. There was nothing sarcastic about it. You’d know if there truly was. Aussies are renowned for being sacarstic buggers
-
April 12, 2006 at 7:15 am #3286383
sarcastic buggers?
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Sarcasm? Nah, curiosity
or buggered sarcastics? 😀
Welcome aboard Des! ;\
-
April 13, 2006 at 12:31 am #3103733
Curiosity killed the p*ssy cat :D
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to Sarcasm? Nah, curiosity
Sorry about the misunderstanding. There have been numerous instances of new members being smart asses, and having to be told that they should change their attitude.
Welcome aboard.
-
April 12, 2006 at 5:09 pm #3075350
Re. blocking private messages.
by deepsand · about 18 years ago
In reply to Yes indeed, you are new here
I concur wholeheartedly.
My opinion is that if they wish to remain anonymous, then don’t show up in public places.
Allowing members to hide is one of the biggest mistakes that TR has made.
While there may be legitimate reasons why one might fear harrasing missives from others, one can always use discardable e-mail addresses to combat such.
-
April 16, 2006 at 1:25 pm #3105101
Should have two levels of members
by jdclyde · about 18 years ago
In reply to Re. blocking private messages.
fly on the wall, that either just gets the newsletters and downloads, and read along in discussions, and the other is someone that wants to post in the discussions.
You should have to enable peer messages to post. Isn’t that what gmail was invented for?
-
April 16, 2006 at 6:58 pm #3105050
And, for ability to post to Q&A as well.
by deepsand · about 18 years ago
In reply to Should have two levels of members
I think you’ve hit on an excellent idea here, one that should be promoted with the goal of its being implemented.
-
April 12, 2006 at 4:41 am #3286444
Welcome, and don’t pay attention to Julian.
by x-marcap · about 18 years ago
In reply to Do you really?
Don’t pay any attention to Julian.
He is the resident Aussi, anti-American, anti-Christian,anti-anything moral, ex-journalist in residence.
He is abusive and you are his latest target. He will attempt to discredit you rather than deal with anything that you write…
He just had a birthday and turned 65, so if you are kind to him he’ll eat you up.
He is a bully. Kick him hard enough, and he’ll whine in a corner…
Again, welcome to TR.
-
April 12, 2006 at 3:40 pm #3075380
LOL jd
by itdesperado · about 18 years ago
In reply to Welcome, and don’t pay attention to Julian.
Thanks guys for the welcome 🙂
He don’t worry me. I find it amusing when people are all tough behind a keyboard, they make themselves such easy targets for sarcastic buggers or buggered sarcastics 😀
-
April 13, 2006 at 2:10 am #3103707
“the resident Aussi?”
by jardinier · about 18 years ago
In reply to Welcome, and don’t pay attention to Julian.
Actually there are several Australians who are active in miscellaneous discussions, one of whom has been holding No 1 position for site activity for many months. But he’s a Buddhist, so I suppose that is OK. Actually he is more than just A Buddhist, but he is too modest to tell you.
I am not anti-American. I am anti the Bush Administration and if John Howard hadn’t sent Australian troops to Iraq, I would have no particular interest in either America or the Bush administration.
I am not anti-Christian, I am pro-Truth in the broader sense, which allows me to see spiritual values and teachings in other places than The Bible.
As for “anti-anything moral,” well I have no idea where you dreamed that up.
And finally I am not an ex-journalist. I am an accredited freelance journalist and paid-up member of the Australian Journalists Association.
-
April 17, 2006 at 5:31 pm #3104070
People who live in glass houses should’nt …
by deepsand · about 18 years ago
In reply to Welcome, and don’t pay attention to Julian.
Before you start making public pronouncements about the character of others, you might try completing those threads elsewhere that you walked away from after being asked to elaborate on your own provocative utterances.
Otherwise, you would be wise to bear in mind the adage that “‘Tis better to remain silent, and be thought the fool, than to speak and remove all doubt.”
-
April 17, 2006 at 5:34 pm #3104068
And, people who hide under a cloak of anonymity should’nt …
by deepsand · about 18 years ago
In reply to Welcome, and don’t pay attention to Julian.
be allowed to post to public discussions.
-
-
-
-
AuthorReplies