PDA

View Full Version : Off Limits Subjects/Comments



Robert Toy
03-22-2007, 03:50 PM
Aside from the standard respect your fellow writers (e.g. no name calling, rude remarks), what if any subjects/Comments would you consider Off Limits, and if so why? If you think anything goes, also explain why?

Comment: Before anyone goes off on the First Amendment right of free speech, keep in mind this forum although based in the U.S., is International in its membership and accessibility.

Unique
03-22-2007, 03:59 PM
This is just for me personally - I don't care what other people do....

intimate details about their sex life are so 80's. Sex is not a spectator sport.

Again - that's just my opinion but I won't go there.

Before anyone thinks I'm dissin' them about talking about it here or anywhere - I'm not.

I'm just stating I won't participate.

loquax
03-22-2007, 04:05 PM
I don't think any subjects are really off limits, as long as they're discussed without intent to harm.

And the first ammendment wouldn't get in the way here if it could - it regards only censorship by the government. Seeing as AW is privately owned, they can do whatever they want to our freedom of speech.

Birol
03-22-2007, 04:40 PM
The First Amendment to the United States constitution prevents the US government from censoring the press. It does not require the owner of the press to publish everything that is presented to it.

As for off-limit posts, are you wanting to propose a topic that you think might not be appropriate to this forum or board?

Robert Toy
03-22-2007, 04:48 PM
As for off-limit posts, are you wanting to propose a topic that you think might not be appropriate to this forum or board?
Nope, it was a general question to the forum members, disregarding my opinions.

tourdeforce
03-22-2007, 05:04 PM
Hoperfully, erotic fan fiction featuring Whoopi Goldberg and/or Rhea Perlman and/or Teddy G is off limits.

Robert Toy
03-22-2007, 05:23 PM
Hoperfully, erotic fan fiction featuring Whoopi Goldberg and/or Rhea Perlman and/or Teddy G is off limits.
You forgot the why.

C.bronco
03-22-2007, 05:25 PM
I believe that anything harmful to gophers or eggplants should be avoided simply out of good taste. I'm hesitant to proclaim anything off limits due to my psychological make-up.

Sparhawk
03-22-2007, 06:09 PM
Hoperfully, erotic fan fiction featuring Whoopi Goldberg and/or Rhea Perlman and/or Teddy G is off limits.

I burned my retina's just reading this. AAAUUGGHHHH !!!!!

Meerkat
03-22-2007, 06:13 PM
What hope is there for the entire world if writers encounter any topic that is off limits? Can not readers simply look away, or say "that's nice, but not for me?"

Anything less than total liberty is some degree of Taliban.

Celia Cyanide
03-22-2007, 07:22 PM
I've participated in discussion groups and message boards in which certain topics are off limits for certain reasons. Some subjects in a particular group go nowhere,and lead to discussion completely unrelated to the what the group was created for.

Here, we have off topic forums, and I don't think anything is not allowed, as long as we respect each other. There have been threads that have been locked because they moved beyond discussion and got out of hand. Those same subjects usually come up later when everyone has cooled off again.

robeiae
03-22-2007, 07:26 PM
What hope is there for the entire world if writers encounter any topic that is off limits? Can not readers simply look away, or say "that's nice, but not for me?"

Anything less than total liberty is some degree of Taliban.Anarchy. Cool...

Jaycinth
03-22-2007, 07:40 PM
Whenever anyone, anywhere, starts a topic I feel is off limits, I don't listen and I don't participate, because, inevitably, my idea of 'off limits' is going to differ from another person's idea of 'off limits'.

In my opinion, however, few topics are off limits. There is a time and a place for discussion of every topic.

Therefore, you should feel free to start any topic you want, and if you suddenly find youself on a thread with no responses, and everyone and their brother has you on 'ignore', then you can conclude that the topic is 'off limits', and move on with your life.

aka eraser
03-22-2007, 07:46 PM
So, Unique, sweetcheeks -- wanna cyber?

<insert brow-waggling smiley here>

C.bronco
03-22-2007, 07:51 PM
How do I know if I'm on an ignore list? If I'm being ignored, no one will tell me I'm being ignored, and I'm dense enough to not notice for days or possibly months.

robeiae
03-22-2007, 07:53 PM
That's funny, Frank!

But what's with the empty space between your post and this one?

robeiae
03-22-2007, 07:55 PM
Therefore, you should feel free to start any topic you want, and if you suddenly find youself on a thread with no responses, and everyone and their brother has you on 'ignore', then you can conclude that the topic is 'off limits', and move on with your life.
Kinda sums up my entire time as an AW member...

Meerkat
03-22-2007, 08:07 PM
Wouldn't you say that he crossed the line when he went from words to fists? So wouldn't that line be between words and actions, and not somewhere else such as before words?

Rich
03-22-2007, 08:09 PM
This may sound wicked, but sometimes I enjoy posters posting for shock value just so I can out-shock them.

Troo
03-22-2007, 08:13 PM
I believe any hatred/sexism/racism should be never be allowed on any message board. I've been on my town message board for ages and one man is always so mean to women, its hurtful and rude, and he makes comments constantly.

Just days ago he was arrested for a redneck trailer park brawl where he, his brother, and his friend beat a woman and man senseless. He is still in jail and I hope he gets what he deserves.

When the question is about what's off-limits as a topic for a discussion, I see nothing wrong with discussing -ism's, exploring them, trying to understand them. Just as I see nothing wrong with discussing murderers, child molesters, and Barry Manilow fans for the same reasons.

Being one, on the other hand...

Medievalist
03-22-2007, 08:14 PM
Rich, I am shocked. Deeply deeply shocked. Now looking for my used mace . . ..

Medievalist
03-22-2007, 08:16 PM
The Etiquette (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=640035&postcount=4) section of the Newbie's Guide is helpul. The whole Guide (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showthread.php?t=34886) is helpful.

Troo
03-22-2007, 08:30 PM
I feel nothing wrong with the talking about it...but I meant calling posters racist/sexist type names is all.

Totally :)

DeborahM
03-22-2007, 08:36 PM
I don't believe any subject should be off limits because of the vast writing that is done by the AW writers here. Any subject can be used in our WIP even if it is one sentence that impressed them in the discussion.

However, one's opinion is as good as another's and that is what should be respected, not put down, and discussed to it's fullest extent for understanding and clarity.

Some may choose to let their silence be their option while thoughts discussed can open minds, if those participating will let it happen.

Troo
03-22-2007, 08:47 PM
I'm always making anti-semantic comments...

Medievalist
03-22-2007, 08:49 PM
What if someone was a KKK member or something? Should they be able to post rantings and anti-semantic things?

I'm in favor of being harsh about anti-semantic things, though, I generally refrain from it. Y'all would be very upset if I didn't refrain.

Anti-semitic or racist or sexist or just general malice and abuse is pretty much covered by "respect your fellow writers" and there's a clear history of it not being tolerated.

I'm posting this link to the Etiquette (http://absolutewrite.com/forums/showpost.php?p=640035&postcount=4) section of the Newbie guide again. I'm hoping people will click through and read it. It's pretty clear.

Troo
03-22-2007, 08:51 PM
Ah but this is a theoretical discussion about what we, as writers, feel is out of order. It's not in any way a thread that sets out to challenge the board's Etiquette guide.

Jaycinth
03-22-2007, 08:54 PM
Kinda sums up my entire time as an AW member...
I love you too, you spicey tart.

Medievalist
03-22-2007, 09:01 PM
Ah but this is a theoretical discussion about what we, as writers, feel is out of order. It's not in any way a thread that sets out to challenge the board's Etiquette guide.

Look again; SouthernWriter's question was very specific, very reasonable, and very much about AW.

Whatever other theoretical discussion was going on, that one was specific.

William Haskins
03-22-2007, 09:40 PM
I believe any hatred/sexism/racism should be never be allowed on any message board.

the problem with this is it's often in the eye of the beholder.

Medievalist
03-22-2007, 09:48 PM
Haskins

I'm deeply offended that you would refer to my eye so disrespectfully.

Birol
03-22-2007, 09:50 PM
I'd like to know what he's doing beholding your eye in the first place.

Unique
03-22-2007, 10:31 PM
I'm in favor of being harsh about anti-semantic things, though, I generally refrain from it. Y'all would be very upset if I didn't refrain.



Aw, dang. I've gone and corrupted Medievalist.

No, wait.

Your cousin from GA is visiting, right?;)

Robert Toy
03-22-2007, 10:49 PM
The First Amendment to the United States constitution prevents the US government from censoring the press. It does not require the owner of the press to publish everything that is presented to it.

Lori,

You are well aware The First Amendment covers quite a bit more than preventing the US government from censoring the press.

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/ (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/)

Birol
03-22-2007, 10:53 PM
How do you know what I do and do not know?

robeiae
03-22-2007, 11:03 PM
Semantically speaking?

Robert Toy
03-22-2007, 11:11 PM
How do you know what I do and do not know?
A bit of a hostile reply, obviously I don’t know, but your post #4 implied some knowledge of The First Amendment.

In addition, your comment “As for off-limit posts, are you wanting to propose a topic that you think might not be appropriate to this forum or board?”

Neither of which responded to the OP. I try my best not to speak in riddles, if you have a problem, you can PM me, or open it up here.

Birol
03-22-2007, 11:19 PM
My first post was simply seeking clarification of your OP. Such inquiries as to the direction or the purpose behind the topic are not inherently hostile. Why would they be? Questions encourage dialogue and help to make certain that everyone is on the same page.

As for the First Amendment, yes, I indicated some knowledge, but you indicated that you knew, for a fact, that I had greater knowledge and was deliberately leaving out relevant quotes. Such certainty of what I do and do not know naturally raised my curiosity. If you "obviously do not know" why state what I do and do not know with such certainty?

Your most recent post seems to imply that I'm somehow deliberately misreading your OP, yet you are the individual who first raised the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the subsequent direction the thread took was to discuss what could and could not be published on AW. What other part of the First Amendment, other than the portion discussing AW as a press, is relevant when discussing publishing?

William Haskins
03-22-2007, 11:21 PM
robert,

i'm not affiliated with AW's ownership or mod-ership... but i do have some experience with button-pushing and controversial topics, and i can honestly say that i've never seen any preemptive prohibition of any topic on these forums. generally speaking, any topic that is discussed in an intelligent manner can have some space carved out for it here.

that said, you may not speak in riddles, but you did bury your lede a bit with your comment about international access. i can only surmise that you're wondering aloud if AW does (or should) factor in certain speech restrictions of other nations into its policy of what is acceptable content here.

i can tell you, speaking only for myself, that i would never shy away from a comment or topic because of what censors in, say, china or the EU (or anywhere else, for that matter) might think.

SpookyWriter
03-22-2007, 11:24 PM
buggers

Robert Toy
03-22-2007, 11:35 PM
My first post was simply seeking clarification of your OP. Such inquiries as to the direction or the purpose behind the topic are not inherently hostile. Why would they be? Questions encourage dialogue and help to make certain that everyone is on the same page.

As for the First Amendment, yes, I indicated some knowledge, but you indicated that you knew, for a fact, that I had greater knowledge and was deliberately leaving out relevant quotes. Such certainty of what I do and do not know naturally raised my curiosity. If you "obviously do not know" why state what I do and do not know with such certainty?

Your most recent post seems to imply that I'm somehow deliberately misreading your OP, yet you are the individual who first raised the First Amendment of the US Constitution and the subsequent direction the thread took was to discuss what could and could not be published on AW. What other part of the First Amendment, other than the portion discussing AW as a press, is relevant when discussing publishing?
I was being gracious by implying your knowledge was greater than your initial statement. Pardon me if I was wrong.

The OP question was, “Aside from the standard respect your fellow writers (e.g. no name calling, rude remarks), what if any subjects/Comments would you consider Off Limits, and if so why? If you think anything goes, also explain why?”

My comment of not mentioning The First Amendment, right of free speech was to avoid exactly what we are doing now.

janetbellinger
03-22-2007, 11:41 PM
Well, I think mods would remove any posting that was against the law, such as racial slurs or threats.

Robert Toy
03-22-2007, 11:47 PM
robert,
that said, you may not speak in riddles, but you did bury your lede a bit with your comment about international access. i can only surmise that you're wondering aloud if AW does (or should) factor in certain speech restrictions of other nations into its policy of what is acceptable content here.

i can tell you, speaking only for myself, that i would never shy away from a comment or topic because of what censors in, say, china or the EU (or anywhere else, for that matter) might think.
William,
That is exactly the point, it has been repeated over and over that the AW membership is worldwide and diverse and I was trying not to Americanize the discussion (First Amendment)

I totally agree with not shying away from a comment or subject, and I have always spoken my mind, sometimes to my later regret, but those are consequences that I bring upon myself and willing accept them for the right to speak what I feel.

Birol
03-22-2007, 11:47 PM
I was being gracious by implying your knowledge was greater than your initial statement. Pardon me if I was wrong.

LOL. If you mean this statement as an insult, you're off your mark. I'll be the first to tell you that there are many things I do not know. Knowledge is different than intelligence. Neither pre-supposes the other.


The OP question was, “Aside from the standard respect your fellow writers (e.g. no name calling, rude remarks), what if any subjects/Comments would you consider Off Limits, and if so why? If you think anything goes, also explain why?”

Yes. This I know was the initiating post, but to me there seems to be a subtext to it. My first post in this thread was a direct, to the point question seeking clarification of that subtext.


My comment of not mentioning The First Amendment, right of free speech was to avoid exactly what we are doing now.

Very well. I understand and appreciate that, but if you did not want to have this portion of our conversation, you did not have to respond to my response to your comment about the First Amendment or you could've just come out and said, "I do not wish to discuss the First Amendment of the US Constitution. I would rather discuss...."

Questions. Answers. Clarification. Explainations. They are all part of fostering dialogue and creating understanding among different individuals and different peoples.

tourdeforce
03-22-2007, 11:48 PM
... i can honestly say that i've never seen any preemptive prohibition of any topic on these forums.

maestroworks seems to shut down and delete any thread that dares to question the last time he cleaned his bathroom.

So that topic is pretty much prohibited.

One can only imagine what is going on in that home.

(I am guessing 18 months and counting).

aka eraser
03-22-2007, 11:52 PM
I wouldn't look kindly at threads devoted to the benefits of joining NAMBLA, the joy of rape or the inferiority of a certain race or gender.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 12:04 AM
LOL. If you mean this statement as an insult, you're off your mark. I'll be the first to tell you that there are many things I do not know. Knowledge is different than intelligence. Neither pre-supposes the other.
[/font][/color]


Yes. This I know was the initiating post, but to me there seems to be a subtext to it. My first post in this thread was a direct, to the point question seeking clarification of that subtext.

[font=Verdana]

Very well. I understand and appreciate that, but if you did not want to have this portion of our conversation, you did not have to respond to my response to your comment about the First Amendment or you could've just come out and said, "I do not wish to discuss the First Amendment of the US Constitution. I would rather discuss...."

Questions. Answers. Clarification. Explainations. They are all part of fostering dialogue and creating understanding among different individuals and different peoples.
Lori,
1 – The statement was not meant as an insult, my insults are really, really obvious.
2 – “Subtext” seems to be the latest catch-phrase, this is the second time that phase was used on recent posts I made. Please explain?
3 – Read all the posts, how many actually responded to the original OP?

tourdeforce
03-23-2007, 12:11 AM
It is getting really difficult to figure out who we can still make fun of these days.

Can we get a definitive list of who we is fair game for persecution?

I am betting that we are pretty safe with:

- those monks that do the Gregorian chants
- people with webbed toes
- members of Menudo tribute bands
- anyone named Newt
- Britney Spears

Medievalist
03-23-2007, 12:15 AM
“Subtext” seems to be the latest catch-phrase, this is the second time that phase was used on recent posts I made. Please explain?

It's not a catch phrase, I swear. It is a term of art though, or jargon, if you want to be a mite more honest. It was first a term used by linguists, some decades ago, I'm not sure how many, to refer to the idea that there are often layers of meaning in our words, and our texts. There is a surface meaning, and then, a secondary meaning behind that. It's akin to an extended Freudian slip, in some ways.

If I say "I really wish Walloons would try to adapt." That implies nothing more, really, than what it seems to.

But if I say "I really wish Wallies would try to adapt," there's a sub-text there, because of the demeaning diminutive. This is a really really crude example.

The phrase was picked up by literary theorists/critics, was very much seized upon by humanist scholars in the eighties and has never left. It's much used now by people writing screen plays.

It's not a simple thing to see, or understand or use.

Here are some definitions:

http://www.answers.com/topic/subtext

Birol
03-23-2007, 12:17 AM
2 – “Subtext” seems to be the latest catch-phrase, this is the second time that phase was used on recent posts I made. Please explain?

subtext: the underlying or implicit meaning, as of a literary work.

"subtext." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 22 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subtext>.


ETA: Medievalist explains it in greater detail and better.


3 – Read all the posts, how many actually responded to the original OP?

I have read all the posts. The vast majority of the posters participating in this thread have responded to the OP. If the conversation is not going in the direction you intended or meant, perhaps you need to clarify your intent or purpose, as I was trying to get you to do in my first post in this thread.

MacAllister
03-23-2007, 12:28 AM
No worries, Robert. I'm actually really interested in people's perceptions of the answer to this question, myself. I think it's a really good discussion to have.

Medievalist
03-23-2007, 12:30 AM
I wouldn't look kindly at threads devoted to the benefits of joining NAMBLA, the joy of rape or the inferiority of a certain race or gender.

No. I don't think any sane person would, frankly. And at least some of those are not legal.

Medievalist
03-23-2007, 12:31 AM
It is getting really difficult to figure out who we can still make fun of these days.

Can we get a definitive list of who we is fair game for persecution?

I am betting that we are pretty safe with:

- those monks that do the Gregorian chants
- people with webbed toes
- members of Menudo tribute bands
- anyone named Newt
- Britney Spears

Personally, I'm thoroughly fed up with the Gauls.

I've had it with them, and their curse tablets. Medievalists though, well, if you can't mock them, who can you mock? I mean really.

Bravo
03-23-2007, 12:34 AM
It is getting really difficult to figure out who we can still make fun of these days.

Can we get a definitive list of who we is fair game for persecution?

I am betting that we are pretty safe with:
- those monks that do the Gregorian chants


dont you dare.

MacAllister
03-23-2007, 12:36 AM
In terms of law, I can look into specifics, but AW is an American business, on an American server. As has been pointed out -- we're privately held, so the First Amendment doesn't actually apply, here.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 12:37 AM
[/color]subtext: the underlying or implicit meaning, as of a literary work.

"subtext." Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1). Random House, Inc. 22 Mar. 2007. <Dictionary.com http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/subtext>.


ETA: Medievalist explains it in greater detail and better.

[color=black]

I have read all the posts. The vast majority of the posters participating in this thread have responded to the OP. If the conversation is not going in the direction you intended or meant, perhaps you need to clarify your intent or purpose, as I was trying to get you to do in my first post in this thread.
If as you say the majority of posters have responded, then the OP was relatively clear.

My intent/purpose was to get a better feeling for what members thought may or may not be off limits and why. Are there any differences between the American majority of the forum and AW members from other countries, cultures?

It is the WHY is what would have been an interesting discussion point.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 12:38 AM
In terms of law, I can look into specifics, but AW is an American business, on an American server. As has been pointed out -- we're privately held, so the First Amendment doesn't actually apply, here.
Thank you

MacAllister
03-23-2007, 12:39 AM
My intent/purpose was to get a better feeling for what members thought may or may not be off limits and why. Are there any differences between the American majority of the forum and AW members from other countries, cultures?

It is the WHY is what would have been an interesting discussion point.
Again, I think this is an excellent and important question -- and well worth discussing.

Tiger
03-23-2007, 12:47 AM
I burned my retina's just reading this. AAAUUGGHHHH !!!!!

Strange... Mine froze

Birol
03-23-2007, 12:47 AM
If as you say the majority of posters have responded, then the OP was relatively clear.

I said the majority of posters participating in this thread had responded to the OP, as differentiated from the posters who had responded in this thread with such comments as "buggers." I did not state, or imply, that the majority of AW's posters had responded.

Truth be told, the majority of AW's membership will not post in TIO. They think it's a skeery place.


My intent/purpose was to get a better feeling for what members thought may or may not be off limits and why. Are there any differences between the American majority of the forum and AW members from other countries, cultures?

Thank you for this clarification; I was not getting this intent from the OP.

Chumplet
03-23-2007, 12:55 AM
I suppose you have to explore the terms "Politically Correct" and "Hate". The perimetres are constantly changing, and sometimes it's hard to determine what is truly inappropriate and what isn't. It's all in the eye of the reader.

There's a fine line between Politically Incorrect and Hate. If a poster crosses the line, it's up to the rest of us AW'ers to gently remind the poster what is acceptable and what isn't. I mean, if I suddenly jumped up and shouted, I HATE DOGS, just because one bit me when I was a kid, would I be banned? I don't think so. Dog lovers would jump on the wagon and remind me of the nice dog that befriended me when I was seven.

If I suddenly decided to shout out, "Immigrants are stealing my job!" I would expect many AW'ers to remind me that I shouldn't be a technical support person in the first place, because I don't know what a router is. If I can't handle their opinions on the matter, I don't belong here. Better to just close the door and hide from the world.

The line is in the sand. It can be brushed out and moved several feet back or forward at any time. It's not up to us to decide if it should be in cement.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 12:56 AM
Can you move it to Critical Theory and Philosophy of Language, or somewhere other than TIO?

MacAllister
03-23-2007, 12:59 AM
Actually, I think that's a reasonable request. Hang on, everyone!

dclary
03-23-2007, 01:05 AM
A bit of a hostile reply, obviously I don’t know, but your post #4 implied some knowledge of The First Amendment.

In addition, your comment “As for off-limit posts, are you wanting to propose a topic that you think might not be appropriate to this forum or board?”

Neither of which responded to the OP. I try my best not to speak in riddles, if you have a problem, you can PM me, or open it up here.

Your reply is similarly hostile, Robert. At least, it does nothing to reduce the increased tensions present in Birol's reply.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 01:07 AM
Your reply is similarly hostile, Robert. At least, it does nothing to reduce the increased tensions present in Birol's reply.
Noted

Troo
03-23-2007, 01:09 AM
I'm thrilled that nobody yet has mentioned their loathing for the swa-Mmmpphh!!!

*Gets hauled away by men in black suits*

dmytryp
03-23-2007, 01:09 AM
I don't think this so much of off limits, but more of a poor taste discussing other members without their presense.
I also believe members' personal lives are definitely off-limits without their explicit concent

Troo
03-23-2007, 01:11 AM
Particularly on a public board. Good point!

ColoradoGuy
03-23-2007, 01:21 AM
robert,

i'm not affiliated with AW's ownership or mod-ership... but i do have some experience with button-pushing and controversial topics, and i can honestly say that i've never seen any preemptive prohibition of any topic on these forums. generally speaking, any topic that is discussed in an intelligent manner can have some space carved out for it here.
This is also my view, since I now find myself moderating this thing. One can have respectful discussions of all manner of incendiary topics.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 01:22 AM
Just out of curiosity, are there any Muslim members that feel that they have been unfairly picked on?

William Haskins
03-23-2007, 01:23 AM
This is also my view, since I now find myself moderating this thing. One can have respectful discussions of all manner of incendiary topics.

...with the caveat that i make no guarantees that i can remain respectful.

William Haskins
03-23-2007, 01:26 AM
Just out of curiosity, are there any Muslim members that feel that they have been unfairly picked on?


.........................."Okay, everyone... Smile!"

http://www.lucianne.com/routine/images/11-21-06.jpg

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 01:31 AM
Okay, let's try ANY minority group?

Medievalist
03-23-2007, 01:35 AM
Just out of curiosity, are there any Muslim members that feel that they have been unfairly picked on?

Err . . . Robert? Look at that "unfairly picked on." I'm not meaning to tweak you, I swear but . .. is "picking on" ever really fair?

But to answer your question, yes. There have been some posts that were not acceptable, and there were complaints about them from Muslim and non Muslims.

There's a lot of communication that takes place off the boards, remember. PMs, the Caution icon that members use to flag posts, Rep comments, and email.

The cool thing is that members are mostly thoughtful; and that we can usually rely on them to tell us if they see a problem. We really really depend on that since it's not possible to read every single post all the time. It's also important because members may be aware of things that mods aren't -- and often, we're aware of things they aren't, and if members contact us, we can fill them in.

dclary
03-23-2007, 01:43 AM
Come on, Medi! SOME people deserve being picked on, right?

Like.. I don't know... Grape people? You can pick on them in bunches!

GET IT?

BUNCHES?

PICK?!?!??!


:roll:







... ok, yeah. Maybe I deserve to be picked on too, a little.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 01:43 AM
Err . . . Robert? Look at that "unfairly picked on." I'm not meaning to tweak you, I swear but . .. is "picking on" ever really fair?

But to answer your question, yes. There have been some posts that were not acceptable, and there were complaints about them from Muslim and non Muslims.

There's a lot of communication that takes place off the boards, remember. PMs, the Caution icon that members use to flag posts, Rep comments, and email.

The cool thing is that members are mostly thoughtful; and that we can usually rely on them to tell us if they see a problem. We really really depend on that since it's not possible to read every single post all the time. It's also important because members may be aware of things that mods aren't -- and often, we're aware of things they aren't, and if members contact us, we can fill them in.
My meaning of unfairly picked on is being singled out without provocation. Someone making rude/racist remarks is open to be fairly picked on (criticized/mocked, etc.) by other member for making said remarks.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 01:45 AM
Come on, Medi! SOME people deserve being picked on, right?

Like.. I don't know... Grape people? You can pick on them in bunches!

GET IT?

BUNCHES?

PICK?!?!??!


:roll:







... ok, yeah. Maybe I deserve to be picked on too, a little.
Not one of your better ones

Peggy
03-23-2007, 02:00 AM
My meaning of unfairly picked on is being singled out without provocation. Someone making rude/racist remarks is open to be fairly picked on (criticized/mocked, etc.) by other member for making said remarks. Maybe I'm a goody goody, but I think that even people that say rude or racist things shouldn't be picked on either. I don't mean that people shouldn't say anything if they are offended, but rather that posters here be given the opportunity to engage in discussion about what they've said. It can come as a surprise when the language or humor you use with your offline friends is found to be offensive or is misconstrued by people you consider your online friends.

Refraining from personal attacks can lead to meaningful eye-opening discussion.

Medievalist
03-23-2007, 02:10 AM
My meaning of unfairly picked on is being singled out without provocation. Someone making rude/racist remarks is open to be fairly picked on (criticized/mocked, etc.) by other member for making said remarks.

OK.

Here's the thing, I do look closely at words and think about exactly what they mean. I realize it's often an obsessive fault on my part so I was trying to make sure I wasn't misunderstanding.

I wasn't intending an attack or criticism. Really. I'm pretty blatant about stuff when I'm annoyed, as in saying I'm really annoyed that . . . .

I'm sorry if I made you feel attacked.

William Haskins
03-23-2007, 02:13 AM
but would one really have to be part of a minority group to be unfairly mocked or ridiculed?

is it less egregious when it's done to someone who's not a minority?

MacAllister
03-23-2007, 02:15 AM
Yes. That's why it's mean to pick on Dems and only fair to pick on Repubs.

Medievalist
03-23-2007, 02:20 AM
but would one really have to be part of a minority group to be unfairly mocked or ridiculed?

is it less egregious when it's done to someone who's not a minority?

I'm gonna be mocked for this for sure . .. but

Despite my less than excellent control over my temper, I do very much feel that "picking on" means tease and bully, in a very negative fashion, and no, it's not ever right to bully. There's a connotation of bully that's particularly not good. I do believe the "pick on someone your own size" thing.

So no, even though I do lose my temper, it's not acceptable to mock or ridicule any one if it's done with malice. It really isn't. There are better ways.

There are times when gentle mockery in very specific circumstances can be both kind and thoughtful, but it's not an easy thing to do online.

Birol
03-23-2007, 02:20 AM
but would one really have to be part of a minority group to be unfairly mocked or ridiculed?

is it less egregious when it's done to someone who's not a minority?

No. Respect goes both ways. However, the burden of understanding usually falls on the dominant culture because, well, they are dominant so it's the non-dominant Other that usually needs to be understood because they are [perceived as] the misunderstood, misrepresented, under-represented outsider.

just_a_girl
03-23-2007, 02:28 AM
I agree. I think any sort of racist, sexist, homophobic name-calling should be off-limits. As should any attempts to incite violence against a particular group of people. When I was younger, I used to be a big "anything goes," "free speach" type of person, but as I get older I see that the line between speech and action is really pretty thin; therefore, hate speech really should not be protected.



I feel nothing wrong with the talking about it...but I meant calling posters racist/sexist type names is all.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 02:48 AM
It can come as a surprise when the language or humor you use with your offline friends is found to be offensive or is misconstrued by people you consider your online friends.

Refraining from personal attacks can lead to meaningful eye-opening discussion.

That is the basic problem with the written vs. spoken words, when talking to your offline friends you they can see your body language, listen to the tone of your voice, etc. Putting words in writing you're invisible, some people try to make up for this by adding smiles, or “just joking”, but you really can’t tell. This can and does lead to all sorts of misunderstandings, just look at this thread for example. It is civil, yet there have been a number of misunderstandings, mostly my doing, ‘cause me English she not so good.

ColoradoGuy
03-23-2007, 02:50 AM
But it is an excellent way to practice nuance in language. Because, fundamentally, we should be able to communicate without the smilies or the hand gestures.

Birol
03-23-2007, 02:56 AM
As writers, it is imperative we practice such nuances. There will come a time when we have to communicate tone without the use of outside additional, non-textual qualifiers.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 03:16 AM
But it is an excellent way to practice nuance in language. Because, fundamentally, we should be able to communicate without the smilies or the hand gestures.
I absolutely agree. However, different people, especially when you add a cultural difference and/or age differences can read the same words and come up with different interpretations.

Personally, I find it offensive to call a Head of State (President), be he/she a Democrat or Republican an idiot, or even worst terms, but that’s just me.

Birol
03-23-2007, 03:21 AM
I'm curious now. Why do you find that offensive?

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 03:39 AM
I'm curious now. Why do you find that offensive?
I guess I’m old fashioned (Old for sure), but I still have a respect for the Office and still have faith in the system, no matter how “bad” a president may be, the U.S. still manages to maintain its status.

Yes, there are, and always will be ups and downs, wars, scandals, etc., but we always manage to survive them. Ready to pounce on the next one…ah the end of the world, the worst ever, etc.

It reminds me of my military days, there are only two good posts, the one you just left, and the next one you’re going to.

SC Harrison
03-23-2007, 03:41 AM
I wouldn't look kindly at threads devoted to the benefits of joining NAMBLA, the joy of rape or the inferiority of a certain race or gender.

As a member of the North American Miserly Bastard's Legacy Association, the only thing I hate worse than spending money is to see our good name besmirched...:)

I did think of one taboo posting subject—using AW to attack or disparage other watchdog sites, which usually happens when someone gets into a row and flounces.

Birol
03-23-2007, 03:47 AM
I guess I’m old fashioned (Old for sure), but I still have a respect for the Office and still have faith in the system, no matter how “bad” a president may be, the U.S. still manages to maintain its status.

Yes, there are, and always will be ups and downs, wars, scandals, etc., but we always manage to survive them. Ready to pounce on the next one…ah the end of the world, the worst ever, etc.

It reminds me of my military days, there are only two good posts, the one you just left, and the next one you’re going to.

One of the reasons George Washington chose not to run for a third term was he was unprepared for how the public would project their angst (my word for lack of a better one at this point) onto him. One may have respect and faith in the office and still question the holder of the office. They are two different entities.

Medievalist
03-23-2007, 03:49 AM
I did think of one taboo posting subject—using AW to attack or disparage other watchdog sites, which usually happens when someone gets into a row and flounces.

And spam, of course. There's a lot of spam but mostly it gets zapped pretty quickly . . . in part because members let us know when they see spam.

William Haskins
03-23-2007, 03:57 AM
I agree. I think any sort of racist, sexist, homophobic name-calling should be off-limits. As should any attempts to incite violence against a particular group of people. When I was younger, I used to be a big "anything goes," "free speach" type of person, but as I get older I see that the line between speech and action is really pretty thin; therefore, hate speech really should not be protected.

one person's racism/bigotry can be another person's analysis.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 04:10 AM
One of the reasons George Washington chose not to run for a third term was he was unprepared for how the public would project their angst (my word for lack of a better one at this point) onto him. One may have respect and faith in the office and still question the holder of the office. They are two different entities.
Like I said it’s just a personal quirk that I find offensive. The holder of the office represents The Office. Calling the holder vicious names does nothing to change policy, so it is a useless exercise while they are in office. Vote him/her out if you dislike their policies. I don’t know maybe it makes people feel better ranting; I tend to rant over things that I have a remote possibility of changing.

poetinahat
03-23-2007, 04:20 AM
I'm gonna be mocked for this for sure . .. but

Despite my less than excellent control over my temper, I do very much feel that "picking on" means tease and bully, in a very negative fashion, and no, it's not ever right to bully. There's a connotation of bully that's particularly not good. I do believe the "pick on someone your own size" thing.

So no, even though I do lose my temper, it's not acceptable to mock or ridicule any one if it's done with malice. It really isn't. There are better ways.

There are times when gentle mockery in very specific circumstances can be both kind and thoughtful, but it's not an easy thing to do online.
I'm with you, Lisa -- IMO, the phrase 'picking on' has a specific connotation of targeting or bullying. It's a step up from 'singling out', which is a step up from mere 'engaging'.

robeiae
03-23-2007, 04:20 AM
I guess I’m old fashioned (Old for sure), but I still have a respect for the Office and still have faith in the system, no matter how “bad” a president may be, the U.S. still manages to maintain its status.

Yes, there are, and always will be ups and downs, wars, scandals, etc., but we always manage to survive them. Ready to pounce on the next one…ah the end of the world, the worst ever, etc.
I agree. I think I even started a thread about this, once...

I have no problem with people calling any decision made by the President (or any other political leader) stupid or idiotic, in terms of courteous discourse. And I see no reason to object when someone says I hate/loathe/despise such-and-such political leader. But I find the name-calling and attempts at "clever" nicknames to be quite offensive behavior. I've given up pointing that out, since few seem of a similar mind (though there are some, of various political persuasions). And I often worry that the reality of this behavior has caused me to slip, myself (though I try not to).

As I said before, I don't/didn't like it when it is/was directed at Clinton--and Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc.--and I don't like when it's directed at GW Bush. It has zero to do with ideology.

So Robert, there are still a few of us.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 04:29 AM
I'm with you, Lisa -- IMO, the phrase 'picking on' has a specific connotation of targeting or bullying. It's a step up from 'singling out', which is a step up from mere 'engaging'.
Targeting is a good example.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 04:31 AM
I agree. I think I even started a thread about this, once...

I have no problem with people calling any decision made by the President (or any other political leader) stupid or idiotic, in terms of courteous discourse. And I see no reason to object when someone says I hate/loathe/despise such-and-such political leader. But I find the name-calling and attempts at "clever" nicknames to be quite offensive behavior. I've given up pointing that out, since few seem of a similar mind (though there are some, of various political persuasions). And I often worry that the reality of this behavior has caused me to slip, myself (though I try not to).

As I said before, I don't/didn't like it when it is/was directed at Clinton--and Bush I, Reagan, Carter, Ford, etc.--and I don't like when it's directed at GW Bush. It has zero to do with ideology.

So Robert, there are still a few of us.
Two?

Peggy
03-23-2007, 04:38 AM
However, different people, especially when you add a cultural difference and/or age differences can read the same words and come up with different interpretations. Exactly. That's why I think it's important to not immediately start jumping down the throat a person that offends you, since possibly no offense was meant. Tell the person why a particular turn of phrase upsets you, and give him/her a chance to respond.

William Haskins
03-23-2007, 04:41 AM
i just can't imagine living my life fixating on things that offend me.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 04:46 AM
Exactly. That's why I think it's important to not immediately start jumping down the throat a person that offends you, since possibly no offense was meant. Tell the person why a particular turn of phrase upsets you, and give him/her a chance to respond.
Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. I have jumped a few times on pure emotion, sometimes I was right…other times I was wrong. Emotion is a tough thing to control depending on the perceived context.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 04:47 AM
i just can't imagine living my life fixating on things that offend me.
Damn, I thought everything offended you!

William Haskins
03-23-2007, 05:01 AM
you would be mistaken.

Robert Toy
03-23-2007, 05:26 AM
you would be mistaken.
Not my first time, and unfortunately surely not my last

Peggy
03-23-2007, 05:46 AM
Unfortunately, that is easier said than done. I have jumped a few times on pure emotion, sometimes I was right…other times I was wrong. Emotion is a tough thing to control depending on the perceived context. It is hard. But one advantage to conversing online instead of face-to-face is that when someone "says" something that hits you in the gut, you can step back and think before responding. Sometimes I've had a gut response to something that doesn't seem quite as bad after I've closed the browser for a couple of hours (or at least I can take the time to compose a rational response).

MajorDrums
03-23-2007, 10:17 AM
It is hard. But one advantage to conversing online instead of face-to-face is that when someone "says" something that hits you in the gut, you can step back and think before responding. Sometimes I've had a gut response to something that doesn't seem quite as bad after I've closed the browser for a couple of hours (or at least I can take the time to compose a rational response).

Well, I've resorted to putting people on Ignore, though I don't like to use that function very often; most of the time I only use it temporarily. Because, for some people, offensiveness is a weak (even frivolous) feeling not worthy of being respected because of its subjectivity, and even when you step back and write out a response that you consider falls under the realm of rational to send out to someone via PM, in hopes of having a dialog instead of a flame war, you get dismissed as being a "fascist," in favor of "government censorship," and are "close to embracing the Nazi mentality." Not that, y'know, this actually happened or anything *grumble, grumble* Dialog is important, however, and if the rules are respected, then it should be encouraged. Because of that, I can't think of any subjects being off-limits, but, especially when it comes to internet forums, I do believe in picking your own battles. And that whole "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away," kind of thing. Hard to follow that mantra sometimes, though, I admit.

Peggy
03-23-2007, 10:56 AM
Because of that, I can't think of any subjects being off-limits, but, especially when it comes to internet forums, I do believe in picking your own battles. And that whole "know when to hold 'em, know when to fold 'em, know when to walk away," kind of thing. Hard to follow that mantra sometimes, though, I admit. Maybe "the Gambler" should be the AW theme song :)

robeiae
03-23-2007, 01:35 PM
Maybe "the Gambler" should be the AW theme song :)
Ya know...now that puppy is rolling around in my brain and will probably be there ALL. DAY. LONG.

Thanks, people. :rant:

Troo
03-23-2007, 02:14 PM
I love you too, you spicey tart.

Actually, dragging us back a few days, this really offends me.

I'm a spicy tart, but does Jay love me? No! :cry:

MajorDrums
03-23-2007, 04:44 PM
Maybe "the Gambler" should be the AW theme song :)

:D


Ya know...now that puppy is rolling around in my brain and will probably be there ALL. DAY. LONG.

Thanks, people. :rant:
Then my work here is done *bows*

Anthony Ravenscroft
03-25-2007, 12:24 AM
In re: kicking the President.

My observation since at least the Carter Administration is that (a) the people who say "we must all support the Office of the President!" are 3 times in 4 Republicans speaking during a Republican Administration, & (b) are the first to slander a Democratic President as often & scurrilously as possible. YMMV.

Robert Toy
03-25-2007, 01:07 AM
In re: kicking the President.

My observation since at least the Carter Administration is that (a) the people who say "we must all support the Office of the President!" are 3 times in 4 Republicans speaking during a Republican Administration, & (b) are the first to slander a Democratic President as often & scurrilously as possible. YMMV.
Well, since I was one of the people to support the Office of the President, your observations in this case are totally wrong. I happened to be an Independent and do not ever slander the president be he/she a Republican or Democrat. If you want to update your observations, I suggest you look through a number of posts here that call our current president a Nazi, tyrant, asshole and other assorted slanderous remarks. To be fair, there are others who slander Democratic presidents as well. Anyone running for office is fair game, but once in the Office, I think they deserve some level of respect. That is just mine upbringing.

Penman Shipp
05-26-2007, 08:10 PM
Aside from the standard respect your fellow writers (e.g. no name calling, rude remarks), what if any subjects/Comments would you consider Off Limits, and if so why? If you think anything goes, also explain why?

Comment: Before anyone goes off on the First Amendment right of free speech, keep in mind this forum although based in the U.S., is International in its membership and accessibility.

As this truly IS an International forum, I'd like to post this as a sort of apology to the rest of the world concerning our current President:

Hello, fellow citizens of the planet. I would like to lodge a formal letter of apology to all of you concerning our current President of These United States.

You see, years ago we used to have small one-room schoolhouses in which we educated students in basic subjects -- Reading. Writing. Arithmetic.

We did not have computers.

We did not have School Counselors.

Or SATs.

Just a blackboard, some handheld slates and, perhaps enough firewood to achieve environmental comfort.

However -- We turned out students like John Adams, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, et aL.

After just a few years in this low-tech environment they somehow came out knowing how to read, and write, both in Latin and in Greek.

Somehow, lacking ANY idea of "Attention Deficit Disoder " or "Hyperactivity" they managed, somehow, to master the technologies of the day and graduate -- and to go on to INVENT things -- like; Bifocals, Lightning rods, Lending libraries ( & even ) -- A Constitutional Republic.

These products of the one room schoolhouse forged the greatest creation of a free civilization since the Greek's City-States.

However . . . . SINCE then . . ( And this is the start of my actual apology ) A few Non-survival-minded individuals have influenced American "education:" [ don't say: DEWEY, THORNDIKE or HALL ] and the result has been less than exceptional.

So now, instead of turning out students "handicapped" by having to learn in an environment devoid of computers and high-tech visual aids we have students that can say: "NEW-KEW-LER" and "DECIDER" .

So I must apologize . . . to you all.

The ONLY thing MORE embarassing than having a dream where I am naked in front of everyone important to me is having an American "President" that is so obviously illiterate to ALL of the rest of the world.

This somehow doesn't make sense.

Low tech - competent individuals.

"High Tech" - ignorant boobs.

There must somehow be an incorrect assumption in thinking education & competence are related to money or budgets - or Psychiatric ideas of "learning".

????


Hell -- Maybe even we aren't like rats !!

Rolling Thunder
05-26-2007, 08:52 PM
Sorry. Incoherent and one sided, at best. US history isn't pretty even when dressed up with nostalgia. Today is no different than the same day two hundred years ago.

SpookyWriter
05-26-2007, 08:54 PM
Sorry. Incoherent and one sided, at best. US history isn't pretty even when dressed up with nostalgia. Today is no different than the same day two hundred years ago.Unless you were a slave to the fashion trend of the time.

Rolling Thunder
05-26-2007, 08:58 PM
And today, we're all chained to our job. History repeats itself. ;)

SpookyWriter
05-26-2007, 09:02 PM
But the shackles of bondage can't keep a good man down forever.

Rolling Thunder
05-26-2007, 09:11 PM
But the shackles of bondage can't keep a good man down forever.

Tell Jay that. I'm betting she'll prove you delightfully wrong. :ROFL:

SpookyWriter
05-26-2007, 09:18 PM
Tell Jay that. I'm betting she'll prove you delightfully wrong. :ROFL:Or painfully right. :D

Rolling Thunder
05-26-2007, 09:27 PM
Either way you'll probably have an interesting story to tell. :D

SpookyWriter
05-26-2007, 09:36 PM
Either way you'll probably have an interesting story to tell. :DI always have interesting stories to tale. Now if I can just manage to stay out of jail long enough to recite my tell.

ColoradoGuy
05-26-2007, 09:44 PM
Unless you were a slave to the fashion trend of the time.
Or an actual slave.

robeiae
05-27-2007, 02:06 AM
So I must apologize . . . to you all.
Why are you apologizing? What did you do? And are you including wonderful folks like Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, and all their henchmen in the group you are apologizing to? That's awfully big of you. Can I have your house?

katejohnson77
05-28-2007, 07:14 AM
I have been learning that my style on certain pieces puts my audience on the defensive and I lose them anyway. I think the audience here in these forums keeps the content pretty safe and sensible. If no one views or responds to your work you can probably guess that you need to re-think either your content or your writing in general. I've had to do both and am in the process of just that right now.

I am a better writer today than I was just awhile back when I joined absolutewrite!

As for me personally? I love controversial types of writings because I like to argue with them. I like responding to stuff that is controversial. The broader the range of thinking the more room to breathe and move about, I think.

kdnxdr
07-27-2007, 08:36 PM
Maybe there really is no such thing as freedom? Maybe freedom is only a catalyst to motivate change to move out of painful circumstances or to remove sources that are deemed to be painful?

wayndom
08-20-2007, 06:47 AM
Hoperfully, erotic fan fiction featuring Whoopi Goldberg and/or Rhea Perlman and/or Teddy G is off limits.

So I guess my personal fantasy of Whoopi and Rhea gettin' it on to Teddy G's music is out of the question...

wayndom
08-20-2007, 06:54 AM
Why are you apologizing? What did you do? And are you including wonderful folks like Hugo Chavez, Kim Jong-il, and all their henchmen in the group you are apologizing to? That's awfully big of you. Can I have your house?

Speaking for myself, I don't feel responsible for George Bush's presidency -- I voted against him both times -- but I'm still embarrassed that he's president, and the world deserves an apology for a free country electing such a vile, corrupt, venal, mean-spirited, vicious, underhanded and congenitally dishonest bag of pus.

As for Chavez, Kim Jong-il and any other non-sequiturs you'd like to throw in, they are not my president and do not speak and act (presumably) for the American people.

I gather from the last two sentences of your post that you hold compassion and respect for humanity in contempt, and seek any opportunity to grasp for material gain, which leads me to suspect that you're quite happy with our liar-in-chief.

Hope none of my post is off-limits...

MacAllister
08-20-2007, 07:17 AM
Heh.

Sometimes I think we should create a special user group called AW Troublemakers, sort of like Poet Laureate, or Absolute Sage.

But then everyone will be all "I wanna be in the Troublemaker group, too!" and I'll never get any rest.

Mom'sWrite
08-20-2007, 07:23 AM
Heh.

Sometimes I think we should create a special user group called AW Troublemakers, sort of like Poet Laureate, or Absolute Sage.

But then everyone will be all "I wanna be in the Troublemaker group, too!" and I'll never get any rest.


any attention is good attention.
(I'm sneaking out tonight and TP'ing the mods breakroom.)

Medievalist
08-20-2007, 07:26 AM
any attention is good attention.
(I'm sneaking out tonight and TP'ing the mods breakroom.)

The what? Nobody told me about a breakroom . . .

Hey MacCannister!

Do we get breaks??

Mom'sWrite
08-20-2007, 07:31 AM
The what? Nobody told me about a breakroom . . .

Hey MacCannister!

Do we get breaks??

Don't be all innocent with me. I saw that poster of Bernard of Clairvaux hanging on your locker. What a hottie.

Medievalist
08-20-2007, 07:34 AM
Don't be all innocent with me. I saw that poster of Bernard of Clairvaux hanging on your locker. What a hottie.

Nah, that's Roger's locker. Mine has Christine de Pizan (http://www.bnf.fr/loc/bnf030.jpg).

Birol
08-20-2007, 07:38 AM
The what? Nobody told me about a breakroom . . .

It's actually a padded cell.

Rolling Thunder
08-20-2007, 02:53 PM
How long before Spooky finds this thread again? Anyone want to place a bet?

robeiae
08-20-2007, 10:26 PM
Speaking for myself, I don't feel responsible for George Bush's presidency -- I voted against him both times -- but I'm still embarrassed that he's president, and the world deserves an apology for a free country electing such a vile, corrupt, venal, mean-spirited, vicious, underhanded and congenitally dishonest bag of pus.

As for Chavez, Kim Jong-il and any other non-sequiturs you'd like to throw in, they are not my president and do not speak and act (presumably) for the American people.

I gather from the last two sentences of your post that you hold compassion and respect for humanity in contempt, and seek any opportunity to grasp for material gain, which leads me to suspect that you're quite happy with our liar-in-chief.

Hope none of my post is off-limits...
I don't really understand it, so I'd be hard-pressed to say it might be off-limits.

I think you missed the point, and since this is the Philosophy of Language Forum, let's explore it:

What is an apology?

Apology (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/apology): 1. An acknowledgment expressing regret or asking pardon for a fault or offense.

What does it mean to apologize?

Apologize (http://www.answers.com/topic/apologize): 1. To make excuse for or regretful acknowledgment of a fault or offense.

So, if someone wants to apologize to the "rest of the world" for George Bush, as was the case in the post I was responding to, are these legitimate issues with such an apology:

1) Can you apologize on behalf of another's actions?
2) If so--and the basis of the justification is a representative form of government--does it matter if you voted for the person or not?
3) If the apology is extended to a large population--like the "rest of the world"--and is for a perceived failing (whether real or imagined), does it matter if this population is full of people who could be characterized in the same manner? I mean, what's the point?
4) And if the apology is on behalf of another (without their knowledge or approval) for a failing that is subjective, is it kinda disingenuous? I mean, it's really more about patting oneself on the back at that point, isn't it?

Let's do "honour" and "honourable" next.

ColoradoGuy
08-20-2007, 11:12 PM
I gather from the last two sentences of your post that you hold compassion and respect for humanity in contempt, and seek any opportunity to grasp for material gain, which leads me to suspect that you're quite happy with our liar-in-chief.

Hope none of my post is off-limits...
It's not off limits, but it's a little weird. On the other hand, if you want to consider what you've written as a standard rhetorical gesture, we can do that. I find it to be a rather weak example of recasting your opponent's statement in absurd terms. It's a caricature, really. Try again.