Moderators moderating discussions they're involved in? (and other mod issues)

[happy_terd]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

We can't say whacko now?

So let me get this straight.

Since this forum does not believe in censorship I can use like 30 words in a sentence that explains how someone is nuts or whacky, but I cannot save myself the time and effort by simply summing it all up into a single word that means the exact same thing, "whacko?"

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by happy_terd

We can't say whacko now?

With THOSE lips?

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by TGS

I acknowledge your apology but isn't it better that we all know where the lines that shouldn't be crossed are so that we don't cross them, rather than apologizing when we have?

so you want a pre-definition of all slang that may possibly be used?

that's pretty out there

[pshrynk]

***sigh*** Just be aware of contextuality, please.

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

so you want a pre-definition of all slang that may possibly be used?

that's pretty out there

Well no, I don't think I suggested that - but referring to people as "twats", which in the sense that I used the term is roughly equivalent to referring to people as whacko, wacko or some other similar term, (to the extent that I know what that term means). Both seem to mean something like the target is stupid or an idiot. So I was asking whether, given their equivalence, they are to be seen as equivalently unacceptable.

[GeoffC]

I wish I hadn't bothered ....

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by pshrynk

***sigh*** Just be aware of contextuality, please.

I don't understand why you bring "contextuality" into the discussion. What one consenting adult does with another consenting adult, and a circus clown, has nothing to do with the issue at hand!

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by TGS

Well no, I don't think I suggested that - but referring to people as "twats", which in the sense that I used the term is roughly equivalent to referring to people as whacko, wacko or some other similar term, (to the extent that I know what that term means). Both seem to mean something like the target is stupid or an idiot. So I was asking whether, given their equivalence, they are to be seen as equivalently unacceptable.

ONCE AGAIN!!! I'll type slowly this time. maybe it will be understood. as I recall my words were essentially; "us whackos here in the Llounge". and NOTE!!! once again!!! (typing even slower) when the Llounge (as opposed to the Lounge, or lounge) is used, chances ARE!!!! that the person is being tongue in cheek. or just completely DFNU (which would be dead from the neck up). no twats entered the conversation other than possibly my own.

get it got it good

.EDIT: also note that I used "us" not "you". I included myself in all whackdom

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

ONCE AGAIN!!! I'll type slowly this time. maybe it will be understood. as I recall my words were essentially; "us whackos here in the Llounge". and NOTE!!! once again!!! (typing even slower) when the Llounge (as opposed to the Lounge, or lounge) is used, chances ARE!!!! that the person is being tongue in cheek. or just completely DFNU (which would be dead from the neck up). no twats entered the conversation other than possibly my own.

get it got it good

.EDIT: also note that I used "us" not "you". I included myself in all whackdom

This then may be where our different understandings of your perceived insult arise. Despite what you now claim what you actually wrote was:

just drop it. leave it as something the whackos in the Lounge pLlay around with

This does not sound as though you are including yourself - the most straightforward interpretation is that the whackos are some group to whom you are proposing leaving (thereby excluding yourself from), something, (the discussion of the word liseuse) for them, (the whackos) to pLlay around with. Your claim that this cannot be construed as an insult because you were including yourself in "the whackos in the lounge" simply does not stand up.

There may be some significance to your spelling of pLlay that I don't understand and obviously I don't know whether you simply misremembered what you wrote or have misrepresented it. But the grounds of my "complaint" is that the simplest interpretation of what you wrote is that you were characterizing those who were putting the point in favour of the word liseuse as whackos - and I still cannot see any other interpretation - no matter how slowly you type or how sarcastic you are.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by TGS

This then may be where our different understandings of your perceived insult arise. Despite what you now claim what you actually wrote was:



This does not sound as though you are including yourself - the most straightforward interpretation is that the whackos are some group to whom you are proposing leaving (thereby excluding yourself from), something, (the discussion of the word liseuse) for them, (the whackos) to pLlay around with. Your claim that this cannot be construed as an insult because you were including yourself in "the whackos in the lounge" simply does not stand up.

There may be some significance to your spelling of pLlay that I don't understand and obviously I don't know whether you simply misremembered what you wrote or have misrepresented it. But the grounds of my "complaint" is that the simplest interpretation of what you wrote is that you were characterizing those who were putting the point in favour of the word liseuse as whackos - and I still cannot see any other interpretation - no matter how slowly you type or how sarcastic you are.

the spelling of pLlay was intentional and Llounge should have been the same way. I think it was in the first few days of having a new kitten home. most posts haven't come out as intended

[Worldwalker]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

I think it was in the first few days of having a new kitten home. most posts haven't come out as intended

Do not allow a Savannah kitten to post for you. Take it from someone whose Bengal almost wiped a raid in WoW*: they don't think their cunning plans all the way through. Despite what some people I've talked to online over the years seem to believe, random pounding on the keys is unlikely to produce valid results.

*Caesar has no understanding of how to play a mage, though I'd settle for an understanding of "the keyboard is not a kitty toy". Admittedly, I've played with some humans who also have neither.

[kindlekitten]

Originally Posted by Worldwalker

Do not allow a Savannah kitten to post for you. Take it from someone whose Bengal almost wiped a raid in WoW*: they don't think their cunning plans all the way through. Despite what some people I've talked to online over the years seem to believe, random pounding on the keys is unlikely to produce valid results.

*Caesar has no understanding of how to play a mage, though I'd settle for an understanding of "the keyboard is not a kitty toy". Admittedly, I've played with some humans who also have neither.

rumour has it htat hhtere are some nose touch typists out there

[GeoffC]

out of the llounge and into feedback .....

[TGS]

Originally Posted by kindlekitten

the spelling of pLlay was intentional and Llounge should have been the same way. I think it was in the first few days of having a new kitten home. most posts haven't come out as intended

The sad thing is that, whilst I might object to your means of expressing it, it was actually sound advice, and had it been followed by those who did not want there to be a discussion about the word "liseuse" on MR, the ensuing rancour and vitriol that followed would have been avoided, us whackos who do like the word would have talked it to death, the thread would have become inactive and I wouldn't be walking around with this animosity towards you (to the extent that is possible to feel animosity to someone who one knows nothing about other than that they are American, female, keeps cats and has a bad knee).

And I still don't know what pLlay and Llounge mean.

[GeoffC]

* * * * s i g h * * * *