Pet Hates........or FFS

[walpurgis]

Where do you draw the line?

There is no 'line'. As Martin pointed out, there are no specific rules.

[Joe]

There is no 'line'.

A bikini line?

[Bonky]

Here's chapter (and verse!) from yer Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pippa_Passes#"A_distressing_blunder"

"A distressing blunder"

Besides the oft-quoted line "God's in his Heaven/All's right with the world!" above, the poem contains an error rooted in Robert Browning's unfamiliarity with vulgar slang. Right at the end of the poem, in her closing song, Pippa calls out the following:

But at night, brother Howlet, far over the woods,
Toll the world to thy chantry;
Sing to the bats’ sleek sisterhoods
Full complines with gallantry:
Then, owls and bats, cowls and twats,
Monks and nuns, in a cloister’s moods,
Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry!

"Twat" both then and now is vulgar slang for a woman's external genitals. It has become a relatively mild epithet in parts of the UK, but vulgar elsewhere. When the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary enquired decades later where Browning had picked up the word, he directed them to a rhyme from 1660 that went thus: "They talk't of his having a Cardinall's Hat/They'd send him as soon an Old Nun's Twat."[2] Browning apparently missed the vulgar joke and took "twat" to mean part of a nun's habit, pairing it in his poem with a priest's cowl.[3][4] The mistake was pointed out by H. W. Fay in 1888.[5]'

Joe, that's wonderful! many thanks. It shows the positive influence of the WWW.

[Bonky]

There is no 'line'. As Martin pointed out, there are no specific rules.

Then why have 'Moderators'?

There IS a line. As I think a famous US judge once said: "Free Speech does NOT give one the right to shout 'FIRE'!!! in a crowded cinema".

So libel/slander is OK on this forum then and the administrators have taken out insurance on the possibility/probability of being sued? I for one need to know.

[Macca]

It's always been my view that reasonable adults can interact together perfectly fine without any clearly designated set of rules.


Reasonable meaning that there has to be a bit of give and take within vague boundaries. So those who are offended by coarse language should accept that some of us will use it occasionally for comic effect or to make a point. And those of us who occasionally use it must accept that it has to be used within reason and with a purpose, rather than gratuitously.

Boundaries must be vague because the last thing a reasonable adult wants is to be treated like a child and be shown the boundaries as though he didn't already know where they are.

[struth]

There are rules on forum. Mods will strive to make sure they are kept to.
Re language or bad language , there is no list as such of banned words but using bad language will potentially be moderated

[Marco]

Then why have 'Moderators'?

There IS a line. As I think a famous US judge once said: "Free Speech does NOT give one the right to shout 'FIRE'!!! in a crowded cinema".

So libel/slander is OK on this forum then and the administrators have taken out insurance on the possibility/probability of being sued? I for one need to know.

Have you read this post: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...156#post980156

Marco.

[Marco]

It's always been my view that reasonable adults can interact together perfectly fine without any clearly designated set of rules.


Reasonable meaning that there has to be a bit of give and take within vague boundaries. So those who are offended by coarse language should accept that some of us will use it occasionally for comic effect or to make a point. And those of us who occasionally use it must accept that it has to be used within reason and with a purpose, rather than gratuitously.

Boundaries must be vague because the last thing a reasonable adult wants is to be treated like a child and be shown the boundaries as though he didn't already know where they are.

Precisely

Marco.

[Crackles]

Here's chapter (and verse!) from yer Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pippa_Passes#"A_distressing_blunder"

"A distressing blunder"

Besides the oft-quoted line "God's in his Heaven/All's right with the world!" above, the poem contains an error rooted in Robert Browning's unfamiliarity with vulgar slang. Right at the end of the poem, in her closing song, Pippa calls out the following:

But at night, brother Howlet, far over the woods,
Toll the world to thy chantry;
Sing to the bats’ sleek sisterhoods
Full complines with gallantry:
Then, owls and bats, cowls and twats,
Monks and nuns, in a cloister’s moods,
Adjourn to the oak-stump pantry!

"Twat" both then and now is vulgar slang for a woman's external genitals. It has become a relatively mild epithet in parts of the UK, but vulgar elsewhere. When the editors of the Oxford English Dictionary enquired decades later where Browning had picked up the word, he directed them to a rhyme from 1660 that went thus: "They talk't of his having a Cardinall's Hat/They'd send him as soon an Old Nun's Twat."[2] Browning apparently missed the vulgar joke and took "twat" to mean part of a nun's habit, pairing it in his poem with a priest's cowl.[3][4] The mistake was pointed out by H. W. Fay in 1888.[5]'

That's fantastic. Good to know the working class sense of humour was around so long ago. Of course I knew it anyway but it's nice to see an example of it.

Fair enough if some grown men are offended by swearing, moral standards and all that. But you have to show a bit of tolerance with these things.

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

[Bonky]

Have you read this post: http://theartofsound.net/forum/showt...156#post980156

Marco.

Yes!