1  2  3  4  5  |   Order by index

Apr 11, 2005, 11:40pm

You don't consider your word to be derived from a word with vulger meaning?
This is to say that you consider the slang version of the word to preclude
the literal meaning? I find that highly unbelievable.

From what I know, it is best to stay away from saying all questionable
vulger language. Even if you don't consider it to be in your meaning. In
science, you can sometimes get away from using the "f" word and whatnot if
it is in the correct literal context. However you are admitting that you
aren't even using the conjugated word in the context it should be used. You
have admitted that you are not using it to the dictionary definition. So
why are you even using the word at all? In accordance to what you are
saying, it is slang, and therefore not a proper form on the English
language.

You failed to address my second concern too, which I find interesting. Who
are you trying to talk to with your arguments? What is your purpose and
point? Are you purposely trying to disrespect a majority of the people out
there by calling them names and furthermore disrespecting their decisions?
People have said they are offended by the word. How do you hope to argue
such a thing? And supposing you do somehow find such a way... how do you
hope to argue without disrespecting their opinion (and hence destroying any
change you have)?

I don't see any point in your continued discussion here, as you seem intent
at upsetting people.

-Taunt


[View Quote]

Apr 11, 2005, 11:48pm

ok Obviously, no matter what anybody says, you are going to insist you
were "wronged". I can not make a blind person see.
I'm very sorry I did not give you a warning first before I ejected you. ok?

What you keep dredging up happened 8 MONTHS AGO. Get on with your life.

~ TS

[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 12:03am

Doesn't mean it's completely true...

Especially since you unintentionally aimed it at ME! :(

Oh well. I don't care. :P



[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 1:12am

If it took 8 months to get a reasonable response, then it was worth it;
considering emailing the gatekeeper address takes roughly 1 year.

[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 1:12am

You know what Tauntaun? The person who dredged anything up was Tart. Now we
have to listen to this power trip spill out into the NewsGroups. That eject
deserved a warning and we all know it. So you get over it.

Apr 12, 2005, 1:46am

If you look back in teh thread you'll see that that's just not true.
Everyone here's acting like children. Nothing new about that, but it's
crazily insane how other communities on the Internet can manage to keep a
civil discussion without resorting to namecalling and fingerpointing about
stupid things that happened almost a year ago, but WE can't. How
embarassing. How embarrassing! :|

Chris


[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 2:38am

Who am I trying to talk to with my arguments? The people who feel the need
to self moderate other's language involving subjective words they claim are
offensive, but cannot give a reasonable explanation as to why.I have not
called anyone names in my arguments, so I do not see where you got that
idea. I also don't see how explaining my point of view is disrespecting
their decisions. If that is the case, then anyone against my argument is
disrespecting my decisions as I am theirs, so that's quite a hypocritical
statement. Differing views would be a more adequate term. You ask how I hope
to argue against people being offended by the word. How can you be offended
by something if you do not even know why it offends you? Do 3 letters really
upset you that much if they don't even have a vulgar meaning implied in this
context? If so I must say that's fairly ludicrous. I really don't care
whether people change their minds regarding what they deem appropriate or
not, that's not my intentions. My only goal is to shed some light on the
logic people use when determining what words constitute 'bad' words-It's
these words which are often so subjective they lead to petty ejections,
which is something I hope will one day be resolved. It seems 'ejectable'
words not covered by the customs aid vary from gatekeeper to gatekeeper.
Some consistancy when asked not to use certain words would be nice, but how
can that occur when a word can be interpreted so many ways? If my goal to
you is to upset people, then I must say you are sadly mistaken. My sole
intent is to express my views just as you have done.


[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 7:23am

no, not completely true, but they have to have some truth. maybe not with
you, but in general. thats how stereotypes are formed.

-SWE

[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 11:53am

I agree. If AWI wanted ejection for the word WITHOUT warning, they would
add it to the Customs Aide list.

[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 12:08pm

No. It was Alaskan Shadow brought it up. Again.

[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 12:12pm

No. If there is a legitimate complaint the Gatekeepers act on it within the
week. Seeing as I have never heard a word about this eject from any of my
superiors, I can only assume the eject was justified.

I'm sorry if that displeases you.


[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 4:40pm

And this means it's okay to use them? Right.


[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 5:01pm

[View Quote] Yup interesting discussion, some very good points made :)

Just to clarify: are you mainly complaining about not getting a warning
- that is, GK should have first said that it was not G rated in her opinion,
and then only if you had repeated it you could have been ejected -
or do you think that people should not be ejected for it at all,
i.e. G-rated word (because surely GKs can eject for non-G-rated words)?

I understand your point about well-meant words, but offensive words
are not just ones that have a negative meaning; there is nothing bad
about your body parts or bodily functions or making love per se.
Likewise, even a positive compliment can be labelled upsetting:
I've seen tourists getting ejected by CA for saying "wow, this is good shit".

My argument about compound words was that since "ass" is autoeject,
then it is within GK's discretion to consider any derivatives ejectable too.
Like must be done with certain other (albeit much more gross) words.
Personally I find it one of the mildest words in CA's list, wouldn't even
mind it taken away completely, from offence to a matter of style.
However, when something is ejectable then GK must eject,
even against their personal stand.

--
Mauz
http://mauz.info

Apr 12, 2005, 5:10pm

And I say end this discussion, it is usless and going nowhere :)

Apr 12, 2005, 5:31pm

[View Quote] *bows humbly to the groom* :)

--
Mauz
http://mauz.info

Apr 12, 2005, 6:04pm

Or they're just corrupt :) If GKs can make up their own conduct guidelines
at their whim, as many seem to do, of course you can claim it's justified.
And FYI, I can't recall a single person I know as of late who has recieved a
response from the GKs within a decent allotment of time when it's regarding
a complaint. Most don't get a reply at all, which really does not surprise
me. And yet people wonder why the GK organization is going down hill.

[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 6:29pm

I am complaining because I did not get a warning or explanation for the
eject. A person made a comment regarding my website's name, which contains
the word "badass". I said "badass?" and surprise, to the blue room it is.
Upon returning to the word I asked "why was I ejected for saying bad***?"
because I did not get an explanation and assumed that was the word I was
ejected for, being as I know how petty many GKs can be. I didn't email the
GK addy to question it, because emailing the GK addy for a response is like
asking an elephant to wade through peanutbutter. By the time I'd get a
response, assuming I got one at all, chances are it would be a completely
useless prewritten response anyways. In fact, the last 3 or 4 times I have
contacted GKs via email, I got returned mail because the addresses it
forwarded to were not working, so really, I decided a simple question would
be more efficiant. Unfortunately, due to that question I was again ejected,
this time for "masking a swear word". I for one fail to see how someone can
eject me without telling me why or warning me, then eject me again for
asking what I was ejected for, and self-censoring the word which I assumed
was questionable. Situations like this happen all the time, not just to me,
to tons of people. It's gotten to the point where GKs harass citizens more
than the other way around in my opinion. And when a citizen does cause
trouble for a GK, a lot of times I can't say it's unjustified anymore. I
used to defend a lot of the GKs because they took a lot of crap, but a lot
has changed in the past 3 or so years. When the majority (not all) treat
people as Tart did to me, I don't feel an ounce of pity for them. I used to
never get bitched at while in AWGate. Now I can't even have an intelligent
discussion without being told "Debates are not allowed". I can't say I'm
atheist either, because "religious discussions are forbidden at the gate"
(though the numerous christians who talk about god dont get such treatment
I've noticed). I can't use slang. I can't question why I can't use slang. I
can't post links to .jpg images because "They may contain a virus". And
don't get me wrong, not ALL GKs do this. See that's the beauty of it,
because no two GKs can have the same rules. That would make things too
simple. Citizens are left to assume what specific GKs may or may not flip
out about because they over censor absolutely everything. So I don't think
I'm being unreasonable when I get upset for being treated like just another
sheep-being slapped in the face by a GK and expected to just tolerate it.

[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 6:32pm

No. You are wrong, again. We have a very deffinate set of guide lines. We
are not corrupt and we are not going "down hill".

And just because the complaintant did not receive a response from the GK
organization about a complaint does not mean the complaint was not looked in
to.


[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 7:56pm

Understood, but this wont get you anyewhere. I learned the hard way with
my PK dealings. You should have contacted the head of the GK program, or
even AWI before coming here with it.
>

Apr 12, 2005, 8:23pm

Give it up already. >_>

<_<

O_O

[View Quote]

Apr 12, 2005, 8:36pm

ROFL
I have.

[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 2:33am

AWI and the head of the GKs are constantly nagged about how incompetant the
GK organization has become, it doesn't make a difference. When Tart stated
"I have, however, had some rather unpleasant run-ins with some of the other
ppl posting to this thread. One has to wonder what the provocation is here."
With the sole intent to discredit those who have been abused by Seiya,
without knowing an ounce of what Seiya has actually done, I find it
insulting that I can be put on par with an internet predator for something
as silly as questioning an unfair eject. I do feel it was necessary to say
just why her dealings with me have been 'unpleasant' as she implied it to be
something equally horrible to that which Seiya has done, which is not true.


[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 2:40am

"I have, however, had some rather unpleasant run-ins with some of the other
ppl posting to this thread. One has to wonder what the provocation is here."
Your intent was to discredit those against Seiya by implying petty things
like my questioning of your eject to be worse than what Seiya had allegedly
done, therefore giving her a reason to be "provoked". I don't honestly
understand how my questioning your eject is worse than Seiya violating the
law, but it certainly seems like that was what you wanted to imply by not
mentioning just what caused these 'unpleasant' run-ins.


[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 3:09am

*dons faux british accent* (because I love british arch-villains)

To be honest, you ask for it. You really do. And just to infuriate you
further, and I know that your blood is boiling right now... Yes. This post
was specifically designed to make you mad. Should one wish to gain revenge
and rob me of a satisfactorially vicious reply, one should remain silent.
For once. :)

Chris


[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 3:57am

Infuriate? I'm not infuriated. But I do find it funny how you assume I am.
Do I ask for it? of course, if I didn't want a debate, I do think I would
have stopped replying. And don't try your reverse psychology crap on me
Chris, it wont work :P

[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 4:02am

Or did it?



[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 4:21am

Dr. Chris cures yet another patient? O_O

Wait.. this will be his first one. :P
--
Syntax
SW City at AW 2217s 3610e
www.swcity.net

[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 11:42am

"I have, however, had some rather unpleasant run-ins with some of the other
ppl posting to this thread...."

Yes. That CLEARLY says AlaskanShadow.

*rolls eyes*

[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 12:34pm

well being as few others who posted have given you a reason to dislike them,
I can't imagine who else it may be, except maybe Rossy if you don't have a
sense of humor. And even then, you implied that it was more than one
individual, so what else would one assume?

[View Quote]

Apr 13, 2005, 1:55pm

Ladies... email it now please. This argument is going wayyy over to the
right of my 'subject' tree, and on my resolution, that is bad.

--
- Mark Randall
http://zetech.swehli.com

[View Quote]

1  2  3  4  5  |   Order by index