List of taboo words for Bountiful

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

List of taboo words for Bountiful

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

That's absurd! rolleyes

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

I'm not going to close this thread at this time, but I see nothing constructive that can come of this discussion. It can easily lead to argument and hurt feelings. And I see absolutely no point in coming up with a list of taboo words. The English language sports over one million words, not to mention those of us who can say unkind things in other languages.
Just as an example; if we banned the word "stinky" as insulting, it wouldn't stop someone from saying "You are so malodorous that you can knock a buzzard off a manure wagon at 50 paces". If we ban malodorous, there are other synonyms. If we ban all synonyms, then there are still other ways to express the concept.
The church doesn't work that way either. They haven't published a list of words which are considered swear words. We are simply told not to use such language, and it is left up to our judgement to follow that council.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

I agree with Arbi.

This thread is preposterous!

--Ray

arbilad · Head Chef

Ray, probably best not to throw gasoline on the fire

Besides, with the price of gasoline nowadays and your unemployment, can you afford to waste any on Bountiful?

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

I thought I had a poll attached to this when I started it, but it must have disappeared when I started the thread or when the thread was re-opened.

Doesn't matter in the long run. It probably would have only stoked the coals like tossing lighter fluid on the barbecue...

Arbi, for the record, I think it is silly (is it okay to say that word) to equate the use of precise vocabularly words to swear words, and hence come down heavy-handed anytime someone (ergo Cat Herder) uses one that someone decides to take offense at.

This discussion has happened before with no resolution other than the eventual "Can't we just get along" attempt to mend a fence.

It really seems that for some of the members of this forum, it is okay for them to say things and do things that are just as offensive to others without anything being said to them or to get a free pass from being called on it by fellow members or moderators. But woe be unto the individual who has gotten under that same person's skin and posts a single word (or provides an opinion) that they don't like.

The so-called "Tongue of Angels" policy (that is of course subjectively interpreted) folks are asked to follow is fine and dandy, so long as it is only applicable to others...

arbilad · Head Chef

I never saw a poll attached to this thread. That's weird that many people's attempts at polls have been failing lately.
Cat, all rules that we can implement have to be interpreted by someone. We are all imperfect. But I am not trying to pick on you or target you. Your use of the word absurd was pejorative. Please eschew the use of it in the future.
And I assure you, if anyone else calls an opinion absurd, I will ask them to refrain also.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Ftr, He called the notion absurd, not the person.

Demonstrating that an argument is "absurd" as in "logically incongruous" is a time honored technique in debate. The masters even have a technique called "ad absurdum" which is a rhetorical tact of exaggerating the conclusion of an argument to the point where both parties agree it is "absurd".

--Ray

Cat Herder · Understander of unimportant things

That is where I disagree with you about how I used the word. The word was not disparagingly used about anyone or anyone's opinion. I used it in the context of a concept to indicate it was incongruous and unreasonable to what was recorded (and cited by others) in canon.

So, we are to avoid the use of any word that another may infer means something completely different than what is meant? That pretty much limits the ability to communicate, or at least communicate efficiently...

Like it or not, the forum does apparently have a list of taboo words that gets added to everytime someone takes offense at something another says. A few have been published in these various types of threads... many more are not. Too bad things tend to encourage the building up of these lists instead of making them go away...

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

How about words that sound dirty but really aren't like sextuplets. That just sounds bad. Or analgesic. That's gotta be illegal still in the south! biggrin

-- Edited by Duke of Mirth at 16:30, 2008-01-02

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Endless semantics...

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Cat Herder wrote:

I used it in the context of a concept to indicate it was incongruous and unreasonable to what was recorded (and cited by others) in canon.

Okay... that totally clears things up. Sounds like you're dancing around the bush to me.

You laughed at the guy. This was imo a serious question. People wanted to know how to answer it. You wanted to just crush the notion with an "Isn't it OBVIOUS?" type attitude. Maybe it is. Maybe it's not. If we can't logically or reasonably show that some idea is false, we should look at making our argument stronger or fine-tuning our delivery.

Duke of Mirth · Profuse Pontificator

How about Pusillanimous. That has to be an X rated word. I think it should be banned.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

B-but - I was just getting ready to use that word.

UnderConstruction · Veteran Member

nevermind...

-- Edited by UnderConstruction at 21:22, 2008-01-04

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

You'll have to be way-haaaay more specific than that.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

See my siggy.

mirkwood · Senior Bucketkeeper

Who said anyone expected different results?

UnderConstruction · Veteran Member

nevermind...

-- Edited by UnderConstruction at 21:22, 2008-01-04

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

UnderConstruction wrote:

Why do some members of this forum keep playing the same game over and over again? Is it fun?

That's a good question. Maybe we should ask a few of them.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Start close to home.

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

Jen wrote:

Start close to home.

No, actually I don't think that's where it needs to start. This homefront gave up trying to figure it out a long time ago.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Too bad.

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

UnderConstruction wrote:

cocobeam, about every 2-3 weeks a new argument starts. Someone get offended, arbi closes a thread, and a new one opens up which rehashes the same argument, a few others try to lighten the forum with jokes about the offenses, or silly topics, nothing is really settled, but it's all called moderation so it's okay. I just wondered why? Seems a strange way to run a conversation.

.

That's because it is a strange way to run a conversation. If you don't like what someone says the solution seems to be to "just close down the thread."

I suspect this thread will probably get shut down too eventually.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Have you noticed any commonalities in these arguments?

People do tend to get offended - we're all at different levels there. And I think Arbi is doing his best to try to keep things as civil as possible. Others deal with pressure with humor. Do you have any suggestions?

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

You're right, we are all at different levels. My first suggestion would be to not wear one's feelings out on the sleeve and the second is to please, please give someone the benefit of the doubt.

If someone gets offended, don't attack back. That's where the vicious cycle takes place. Then it becomes a "who offended who game." And, if someone apologizes, let it go.

Oftentimes there seems to be a double-standard alot of the time and I think that's what needs to be addressed.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Poncho29 wrote:

Jen wrote:

Start close to home.

No, actually I don't think that's where it needs to start. This homefront gave up trying to figure it out a long time ago.

I think EVERYONE could stand some self-examination. As soon as we think it doesn't apply to us or we flat out STOP trying to figure things out or improve, we are not on the road to fixing the problem.

I also think there are certain *delivery systems* that are more easily misunderstood in writing, in a forum setting. So I agree with Ponch that we should try to give everyone the benefit of the doubt, get clarification, etc...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Coco: Laying aside who is a victim for a moment... what right did you have to get "offended" (or as the scriptures put it, "take offense") for DoubleD?

Did DoubleD ask you to defend him/her?

--Ray

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

I started it with "Just a thought..." as in we should tread lightly when people are asking questions entitled "Deep Doctrine" and have brought their question to the Super Secret area. I was not and am not offended. I don't like ideas, even if they are deemed "absurd" to be squashed. Politics is one thing, but when people are trying to discuss and comprehend the things of God I don't think casting off someone's questions in appropriate. If anything, don't we want to bring each other up in the Gospel? Why would you call someone's idea absurd and laugh at them?

I came to DoubleD's defense because I felt he was the type that would just let it go rather than stand up to further mocking. As in, It's not worth it. I thought the subject was worth it. I thought what cat said was insensitive.

Reminds me of when I asked Cat why he jumped to Val's rescue as if Val needed it in that other thread so long ago...

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

but when people are trying to discuss and comprehend the things of God I don't think casting off someone's questions in appropriate. If anything, don't we want to bring each other up in the Gospel? Why would you call someone's idea absurd and laugh at them?

I agree that we want to build each other up. I also agree that gospel discussions should be handled differently than politics.

Even in the above paragraph it is evident you've confused the idea with the person.

Cat has stated repeatedly that his comments were his reaction to an "idea" not a person. He apologized for laughing, if the originator found it offensive, and tried to clarify that it was about the idea, not the person.

I read his comment as meaning that he was trying to bring the discussion back to the original questions, which he deemed as absurd, as evidenced by the discussion that had already occurred.

I want people to tell me if they think my ideas are absurd, and then I'd like to know why they thought that. Ideas come to me like raindrops, and so I guess that's why I don't see this as a huge deal.

A strong statement often hides a fascinating discussion.

--Ray

UnderConstruction · Veteran Member

nevermind

-- Edited by UnderConstruction at 21:26, 2008-01-04

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

ray- That's ridiculous. rolleyes

Okay, what did you think I was referring to? You or your idea? Does it truly matter?

I suggested we not laugh and call people's ideas absurd and am right away called snarky and flippant by cat and he accuses me of seeking to be offended by a word. Is he referring to the idea or the person? I then point out how others were making their own points without calling the idea absurd. In other words, let people come to their own conclusions, if you're argument can stand on its own. Then I'm told I'm jumping to conclusions. And he feels I'm telling him to shut up, and assuming he's being rude, disrespectful, condescending or dismissive toward others.

I think when an idea or philosophy is close to one's heart or beliefs, when it's attacked, you feel attacked as well. I just didn't want someone with a sincere question to feel attacked. And yes, you're free to ride the "you gotta be a tough-skin cuz my mama raised me that way" horse, but the fact is some people are not.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

UC- I am sorry I've offended you. I don't look at it as a contest, either. I don't look at all the bickering as "contention" as you put it, though. Just because there is a difference of opinion does not mean we're in Satan's power. The 12 Apostles differ in opinion on many things. Working through the differences and understanding one another is the key. We're not all clones on this forum. And I think if you are hoping others want to hear what you have to say and change because of it, you're right... you'll be disappointed. Maybe we should try to see what we can learn from others instead?

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

UnderConstruction wrote:

Pollyanna and I have had some interesting email discussions about this forum while she was trying to convince me that I could submit helpful comments, however I really think I was right when I told her that the members here do not really want to hear what I have to say, nor do they want to change the way they participate. If they wanted to, they would

That is bottom line, and that is not happening.

Fascinating.

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

UC: We sure are a sorry lot!? One wonders why we bother attempt to communicate at all...

Coco: When I read your comment, I thought it referred to my comments--not to me personally.

So you expect Cat to apologize to you, and everything will be fine? Cat? Do you think you could bring yourself to apologize to Coco for calling her comments snarky?

Laying aside the aftermath, Coco, Can you understand how you are overstepping bounds by taking offense for another?

--Ray

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

Maybe you're overstepping bounds by making that judgement, ray. O.o

alabamabelle · Senior Member

Cocobeem wrote:
I don't look at it as a contest, either. I don't look at all the bickering as "contention" as you put it, though. Just because there is a difference of opinion does not mean we're in Satan's power.

I cannot in all good conscience sit here and believe that 'bickering' is an equation to rational debate. Having been party to debate in high school, our teacher NEVER let us hack at each other as if we were scoring points with our witty putdowns and snide innuendos or sidelong glances meant to generate support or sympathy.

And while having a difference of opinion doesn't put us into Satan's power, using unfortunate word selections or your own bias to add inference to the comments of another DOES.

If we are here to score on each other, let the flames begin. I have had more than my share of experience burning the bridges of others.

But, if we are to engage in meaningful dialogue within this forum, perhaps we should ASK someone what context they meant instead of assuming the worst about ANYONE.

If total candor is applied across the board here, there isn't one resident of the forum from spanking fresh newbie to battle scarred veteran who is in total control of their tongue (or fingers) when it comes to this board.

Daddy used to tell us kids all the time to 'develop a thicker skin and let it just roll off your back, 'cause it ain't worth fussin' over'.

He was right. If you don't like what got said, DON'T REPLY. Just move on to your own op-ed piece and hope that the overly 'techy' don't jump on you . . .

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

Cocobeem wrote:

ray- That's ridiculous.

This is sort of the double standard I was referring to earlier. You're upset with Cat because he used the word "absurd" because you thought he felt Double D's friends' theory was absurd.
But yet, it's ok for you to turn around and call Ray's thought "ridiculous."

rayb · Hot Air Balloon

Jen: Maybe you're right. Thanks for pointing that out.

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Everything's already fine with me. Whether cat apologizes or not is not a big deal. I do not think it's your place to pressure him into some behavior. An apology from cat is honestly something that never entered my mind until you brought it up. I just laid out something I was feeling and have already let it go. I think ray, you might be stirring up the pot ... maybe cat was ready to let it go but now neither of us can (or cat's family) because we're still hashing it out thanks to you.

If you feel someone is being laughed at or put down, you are free to sit back, watch and do nothing. If I feel someone is being treated unkindly and could use some support I might just step in. Maybe you call it taking offense. Maybe I call it standing up against offenses. At any rate, we speak our mind and then move on. At least that's how I feel. Some things will never change - but we can still get some good out of the interactions, can't we?

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

alabamabelle wrote:

Daddy used to tell us kids all the time to 'develop a thicker skin and let it just roll off your back, 'cause it ain't worth fussin' over'.

He was right. If you don't like what got said, DON'T REPLY. Just move on to your own op-ed piece and hope that the overly 'techy' don't jump on you . . .

Wait, to whom does this charming Southern advice apply, and to whom does it not apply? I'll update my spreadsheet.

UnderConstruction · Veteran Member

nevermind

-- Edited by UnderConstruction at 21:26, 2008-01-04

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Ponch - you need to read the rest of my post. It was an object lesson. I actually didn't think ray's thought was ridiculous at all.

(I hope everyone's actually READING the posts we're all talking about here...)

Poncho29 · Senior Bucketkeeper

Thank you for pointing that out Coco. I did in fact read your whole post. One shouldn't focus in on one word in a post, thus here is my point: Did you read Cat's whole post before you got offended by the one word he used?

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

What?

Cocobeem · Keeper of the Holy Grail

Yes, I did. And the few that followed. And remember it was the word AND the emoticon.

Jen · Senior Bucketkeeper

But peppering rude posts with winkies and laughies makes it all better, remember?

UnderConstruction · Veteran Member

nevermind

-- Edited by UnderConstruction at 21:27, 2008-01-04

alabamabelle · Senior Member

Jen wrote:

alabamabelle wrote:

Daddy used to tell us kids all the time to 'develop a thicker skin and let it just roll off your back, 'cause it ain't worth fussin' over'.

He was right. If you don't like what got said, DON'T REPLY. Just move on to your own op-ed piece and hope that the overly 'techy' don't jump on you . . .

Wait, to whom does this charming Southern advice apply, and to whom does it not apply? I'll update my spreadsheet.

Oddly enough, I believe that it applies to EVERYBODY equally. Human nature owns the exclusive rights to the propensity to take offense in word and deed to the actions and speech of others.

No one wants to be considered a target for hostility. Likewise, no one wants to be considered a doormat who has not a voice.

There is a middle ground that humanity struggles to own. The battle for that location is intense because it is a personal issue as individual as we are who fight it.

For those who believe that they are not a party to this, or that this is an issue that only applies to those vague other people, congratulations on achieving something I will go to my grave struggling to overcome.