1  2  3  |   Order by index

Dec 28, 2001, 3:40am

In Castles? Wow, when did they start the slavery thing up?

[View Quote] > It happened in Castles.
> dotar sojat <barsoom at my.activeworlds.com> kirjoitti
> viestissä:3C2B86A0.54617777 at my.activeworlds.com...
> in? I
> answer.
> it
> worse
> language,because
> their
> entire

Dec 28, 2001, 1:12pm

I agree with you that "damn" isn't really a bad word and shouldn't be an
ejectable offense. But the words "god damn" in combination are offensive to
many people because of their religious beliefs. Therefore, I think the
latter would be somewhat more severe than the former. We eject without
question for a certain word that makes fun of African-Americans, so why not
enforce the same rules on a word that singles out a particular religious
group?

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 2:32pm

The first amendment prohibits that. Freedom of religion, not everyone
believes "god" is their god LoL, then there's the people who don't believe
in a god. It's just a figure of speech really.. not really meant to be
taken offense too. If it's offensive to you.. mute them, that solves that
problem, because 99% chance it's not offensive to anyone else, we can't
cater to a small precentile of people who are religious fanatics. But when
someone makes a racist statement, that applies to everyone of that race..
and it offends others that aren't from that race as well.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 2:57pm

i couldnt say it any better :o)



"bowen" <bowen at omegauniverse.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3c2c9e96$1 at server1.Activeworlds.com...
> The first amendment prohibits that. Freedom of religion, not everyone
> believes "god" is their god LoL, then there's the people who don't believe
> in a god. It's just a figure of speech really.. not really meant to be
> taken offense too. If it's offensive to you.. mute them, that solves that
> problem, because 99% chance it's not offensive to anyone else, we can't
> cater to a small precentile of people who are religiou

s fanatics. But when
> someone makes a racist statement, that applies to everyone of that race..
> and it offends others that aren't from that race as well.
>
> --Bowen--
>
[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 3:35pm

lol, I can distinguish perfectly between school-english and moderate
shorthand-english (I hate those "u" "r" and all that crap, that's too
shorthand)...

KAH

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 3:36pm

LoL is shorthand ;-)) not even a proper english word, hehe...

KAH

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 4:05pm

Shorthand for something that's spelt correctly. Cuz, u r, i, etc al. are
not spelt correctly or are even grammatically correct. Lots of Laughs is
shorthand to show laughter.. is cuz and the rest shorthand for stupidity and
laziness?

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 4:22pm

*sarcasm*
Oh, Moff! Please don't hate me because I have a "z" instead of an "s" at
the end of my handle! I tried to get Builder and Builders, but they were
already taken! I had to settle with Builderz.
*sarcasm*

Builderz
Stuff-X Network
http://www.stuff-x.com/
PGP Key ID: 0xAC0E7073 (for non-commercial use)

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 5:15pm

Well you people are missing the big point! Tell me how many people decide to
put a period or a comma in there sentinces when they type? I dont know about
most of you but I never bother with a period, maby a explanation mark, or a
question mark but almost never put a period.

--
TrekkerX
Commatron & Athnex
http://www.commatron.com
http://www.athnex.com
[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 5:24pm

I always thought your name was "Builder Z" as in said "Builder Zee" and not
"builders".

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 6:21pm

With all kidding aside, you can pronounce it either "Builders" or
"Builder Zee." Either way works.

Builderz
Stuff-X Network
http://www.stuff-x.com/
PGP Key ID: 0xAC0E7073 (for non-commercial use)

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 6:24pm

If you're saying short, unfinished sentences like most people do in chats
you don't need a period, that's besides the point though. Damn isn't a
"cuss" word. I could name a couple that really are. :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 6:37pm

[View Quote] > The guy has a point. I mean, english teachers are rolling over their grave
> because kids (of course) can't distinguish what's slang and unacceptable in
> good american business culture and what's "proper". Don't go rolling over
> your grave either, but for god sakes, I have to chuckle every time my
> teachers rip out hairs because a kid writes "cuz" instead of "because" or
> even use "cool" in a report!! Yeesh, there's a time for certain things, but
> using cool in a report or paper is not the right time. It's not only
> disrespectful to teachers who try to teach the english language as it was
> and is, Noah Webster would die in your arms. I must admit, I'm guilty of a
> slip, you'd be surprise how many computer-addicted mistakes go into your
> paper without proper proofreading. ;) I say Moff has every right to kick you
> in the brain for using cuz in a world. hehe. You are, after all, the one
> breaking the english rules for the sake of quick conversationalism.

/begin sarcasm
Ahh! I am blinded by Nornny's perfect glowing light! Please, mighty one, forgive the children's grammatical errors. Have mercy on their souls! Your continued perfection has made me a believer, mighty one!
/end sarcasm

As long as I can understand the message that is communicated, perfect or not, I keep my mouth shut. I think that it is rude to do otherwise.

Just for your information, Nornny, we kids often show more grammatical precision than our elders. =P

--
Shred
"Bah..."

Dec 28, 2001, 6:57pm

So.. it's like two names in one. Woah.. I can't take that.

[View Quote]

Dec 28, 2001, 7:08pm

Blah, I think this has gone on long enough. Some people see a lack of
formal-ish english as a lack of respect, some people see seeing lack of
formal-ish as a lack of respect as disrespectfull to their disrespecting of
typing out full words (or wurdz, to be fair to both sides). So let us just
leave it at that before my sentances get ever more awkward.

Dec 28, 2001, 10:05pm

actually they can, people talk they way they want to if its the correct way
or not and i thinks its retarded that he gets all mad over the way peole
choose to speak

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2001, 2:02am

Why dont you share with us bowen :)

--
TrekkerX
Commatron & Athnex
http://www.commatron.com
http://www.athnex.com
[View Quote] we
> time
certain
not
language
> as
right
all,
>
>

Dec 29, 2001, 2:14am

By your philosophy, then we should let any word go, because if someone
spouts Nazi propaganda, calls you a n***er or tells everyone at GZ to "F
off," they can just be muted. Unfortunately, while that's great in theory,
not everyone knows about or chooses to use the mute feature and complains
about such behavior.

Furthermore, I don't consider someone's objecting to the use of the words
"god damn" the beliefs of a religious fanatic. I personally don't approve
of these words, so if that makes me a religious fanatic, then I'm proud of
it. I can't believe that you would support people making fun of others at
public ground zeroes and do nothing.

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2001, 2:33am

LoL sorry they are extremely offensive. Far beyond damn. :)

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2001, 2:55am

I don't support it, but you're limiting amendment rights, which is by law,
extremly illegal. You're not the Supreme Court so if you choose to limit
these freedoms, AW and yourself could face severe criminal punishment, if
one were to take it that far.

The "n word" is illegal by Amendment 15 of the U.S. constitution.. abridging
a right an accountance of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
This is a loose interpretation of that Amendment.. I don't believe in
following it strictly.

Now as for "god damn." This is strictly a religious matter as you
suggested. You cannot punish someone for saying that as they may not have
the same beliefs you have. Not all religions believe "god" is the god.. or
there is a god. Then there's the Atheist side. By punishing someone
because you find it offensive being a christian is imposing your beliefs
onto that person, which is prohibited by the First Amendment of the
Constitution. The fact that you find offense to "god damn" does not mean
anyone else in that area does.. thus you should mute the offending person.

Nazi propaganda would be imposing the above "you're not my religion so I'm
banning you" banning and allowing of the "n word" which I do not agree with.
"God damn" is a figure of speech and should be treated as such. Not
everyone in this world is Christian.

An to the "F word" now. That is offensive to everyone and should not be
prohibited in a G rated world. Damn is G rated material, last I checked it
always has been since according to the Christian faith, in example, the
preacher has the ability to say damn.. while children are present. As
unfortunate as this is.. the Christian society rules the way our society is
"monitored" and since it is so in the Christian faith.. it is true in our
society.

--Bowen--
P.S. I in no way support bigotry. In case you think I do since I would
allow "god damn" to be spoken.

Dec 29, 2001, 3:16am

> An to the "F word" now. That is offensive to everyone and should not be
> prohibited in a G rated world.

"should be prohibited" my bad..

--Bowen--

Dec 29, 2001, 9:19pm

[View Quote] > I don't support it, but you're limiting amendment rights, which is by law,
> extremly illegal. You're not the Supreme Court so if you choose to limit
> these freedoms, AW and yourself could face severe criminal punishment, if
> one were to take it that far.

Ejecting someone for saying GD is not inhibiting their right to believe what they want to. Furthermore, if you own a private world, you can eject anyone you want to for whatever reason you wish. And last but not least, not everyone is from the United States.

> The "n word" is illegal by Amendment 15 of the U.S. constitution.. abridging
> a right an accountance of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
> This is a loose interpretation of that Amendment.. I don't believe in
> following it strictly.

--
Amendment 15
(March 30, 1870)

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude--

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
--

How, exactly, does calling someone a derogatory term based on race deny them their rights as United States citizens?

> Now as for "god damn." This is strictly a religious matter as you
> suggested. You cannot punish someone for saying that as they may not have
> the same beliefs you have. Not all religions believe "god" is the god.. or
> there is a god. Then there's the Atheist side. By punishing someone
> because you find it offensive being a christian is imposing your beliefs
> onto that person, which is prohibited by the First Amendment of the
> Constitution. The fact that you find offense to "god damn" does not mean
> anyone else in that area does.. thus you should mute the offending person.

Ejecting an atheist because you're a Christian? I think not. 'GD' is offensive to most Christians, and most people know that. Whether *you* find it offensive or not, it's still a worthless thing to say. Constant cursing is completely un-necessary.

> Nazi propaganda would be imposing the above "you're not my religion so I'm
> banning you" banning and allowing of the "n word" which I do not agree with.
> "God damn" is a figure of speech and should be treated as such. Not
> everyone in this world is Christian.

No one in this world is exactly alike; however, the world would be a *much* nicer place if each individual would take some simple steps to try and consider other people's beliefs and race. That would solve the entire problem altogether.

> An to the "F word" now. That is offensive to everyone and should not be
> prohibited in a G rated world. Damn is G rated material, last I checked it
> always has been since according to the Christian faith, in example, the
> preacher has the ability to say damn.. while children are present. As
> unfortunate as this is.. the Christian society rules the way our society is
> "monitored" and since it is so in the Christian faith.. it is true in our
> society.

Hmm... I'll borrow this from you.

Not everyone finds the "F" word offensive, which was one of your theme points to begin with.

--
Shred
Bah... assumptions.

Dec 29, 2001, 9:39pm

> Ejecting someone for saying GD is not inhibiting their right to believe
what they want to. Furthermore, if you own a private world, you can eject
anyone you want to for whatever reason you wish. And last but not least, not
everyone is from the United States.
>

AW is a company owned and operated in the US. Thus all laws apply to it and
everyone whom uses it. And yes, if you're ejecting based on "god damn"
because it's offensive to you, that is being biased to your religion, not
respecting that someone else might not believe in Christianity.

> Amendment 15
> (March 30, 1870)
>
> Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race,
color, or previous condition of servitude--
>
> Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
> --
>
> How, exactly, does calling someone a derogatory term based on race deny
them their rights as United States citizens?

Loose interpretation of the Constitution would provide that if you were to
resort to derogitory name calling, you are abridging the right of that
person to be in that area to hear that offensive material. Note I stated
that I follow a looser intrpretation of the constitution then what is
stated. My reason for this is that our founding fathers wouldn't have
anticpated some of the future problems that may have risen.. such as this.

> Ejecting an atheist because you're a Christian? I think not. 'GD' is
offensive to most Christians, and most people know that. Whether *you* find
it offensive or not, it's still a worthless thing to say. Constant cursing
is completely un-necessary.
>

Not only Atheists.. Jewish people do not believe "god" is their diety..
Johava is the god, not god. So the equal statement would be "Johava damn."
The same goes for Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Shintoists, etc al.. The fact
that someone else would eject on basis that "god" is the only diety is
strictly inposting your religion on them. Not all Christians find "god
damn" offensive. Yes, constant use of saying "god damn" would be
inappropriate.. but one time isn't anything to be especially "moody"
towards. Mute them if you find it offensive and no one else does.

> No one in this world is exactly alike; however, the world would be a
*much* nicer place if each individual would take some simple steps to try
and consider other people's beliefs and race. That would solve the entire
problem altogether.
>

Yes it would, but it also goes the opposite way, you must also take into
respect that not everyone follows YOUR beliefs. That comes before someone
else can take in your situation. Which is a paradox :) because in that
you'd be following what you said first. The.. "follow your own advice"
cliche comes to mind.

> Hmm... I'll borrow this from you.

Go ahead. As long as it's in a respectiable manner.


> Not everyone finds the "F" word offensive, which was one of your theme
points to begin with.

No it wasn't, it was not everyone finds "damn" or "god damn" offensive. And
if you do, the simple mute feature takes care of that. But Brant brought in
new points which needed to be pointed out were not in the same context.

> Bah... assumptions.

I wasn't the one whom assumed.. I merely pointed out that not everyone has
the same beliefs as the one who finds it offensive.

--Bowen--

Dec 29, 2001, 10:56pm

world owners can eject anyone they wish wether it be becuase of what that
person said or if they just don't like them. We can't punish them becuase of
who they eject and why, they don't even need a reason.

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2001, 11:10pm

[View Quote] American laws *cannot* be applied to people outside of the United States (regardless of recent events involving a Russian programmer... ::rolleyes::). Since AW does operate in the US, they may have to obey American laws, but, being in Canada, I don't.

-Agent1

Dec 29, 2001, 11:10pm

Yes but if someone were to bring it as far as they could.. some severe
things could happen to both them and AW. Guidelines are meant to be
followed under the law, not to whatever another person wants.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2001, 11:12pm

If you use this product, it has to follow american rules.. and if you use
this product.. anything you do with it must abide by those same laws.
Simple as that. Welcome to the world of copyrights.

--Bowen--

[View Quote]

Dec 29, 2001, 11:14pm

> If you use this product, it has to follow american rules.. and if you use
> this product.. anything you do with it must abide by those same laws.
> Simple as that. Welcome to the world of copyrights.

sorry that didn't make sense..

AW's company and products have to follow American laws. If you use this
product.. anything you do with it must abide by those same laws..

--Bowen--

Dec 29, 2001, 11:20pm

I'll reply to both, then.

[View Quote] Copyright has nothing to do with this. The only thing close would be contract law, since everyone agreed to the content/conduct guidlines and the EULA when they installed AW.

> sorry that didn't make sense..
> AW's company and products have to follow American laws. If you use this product.. anything you do with it must abide by those same laws..

Not really. If I do something in AW that's illegal in America but not in Canada and doesn't violate the things I agreed to when installing AW, who is going to prosecute me?


-Agent1

Dec 29, 2001, 11:39pm

> Copyright has nothing to do with this. The only thing close would be
contract law, since everyone agreed to the content/conduct guidlines and the
EULA when they installed AW.
>

The only way American laws can apply to a product is if it's copyrighted.
That's why if you copyright things, it's illegal to make a copy all over the
world, because it has to follow International laws. *copying is only a small
thing which copyrights cover* But since this is copyright in America and
Internationally.. you also have to follow America's laws while using this
product. So if you break an American law while using this.. you're running
a risk of prosecution. Same goes with other products such as ISP's.

> Not really. If I do something in AW that's illegal in America but not in
Canada and doesn't violate the things I agreed to when installing AW, who is
going to prosecute me?
>

The person whom was offended has every right to prosecute you if they're in
America.. and you're using that American product. If not they probably
won't feel the need since it may not violate their country's laws. Just
because a company puts things in it's EULA doesn't mean it's legal.. I've
come across it before, but AW doesn't violate American laws.

--Bowen--

1  2  3  |   Order by index