elderbear

Excellent! Without management, the airwaves become useless. But to commercialize them (we've had quite a battle in the US over microbroadcasting on FM - even the "public" stations have tried to stop low power community broadcasting, as has the broadcast industry) and to water down public access standards (once upon a time in America commercial broadcasters had to demonstrate that they were providing material of value to the community, but they've been so deregulated that now they only have to prove value to their shareholders) is terrible. A resource that I own has been GIVEN to commercial interests who make a profit on it and then try to interfere with P2P sharing of the episodes. I have absolutely no qualms about TV episode sharing. Why? Because the broadcasters use my airwaves to broadcast the shows.

A certain sheikh name Hassan had eight horses. Four were white, three were black, and one was brown. How many of Hassan's horses can say that it is the same color as another one of Hassan's horses?

fuck tribbles!

It's actually a brilliant game, Boris, I'm glad you thought of it! :p :p :p Seriously, c4, keep it around - it's a relief from discussing how many asterisks can dance within a "fuck"

OK: MHEAG TTSNEU Is that better? :p ;) B)

[no moderator hat on - just personal reflection] "Profanities" have little value in communication when overused. I'm not worried about the age of people viewing the site - (almost) anybody who reads WTF knows what it means. Whether one reads f*ck or the spelled out word, we all know what it means. Overuse of any form impedes useful communication. Using the asterisk or a euphemism implies a valuing of conventional communication rather than the private "vulgarity" (in the root sense of vulgar, rather than an entirely pejorative sense) that many of us use. I'm not a prude - and I can be a pretty raw and vulgar guy - even at work. But I'd rather not see a lot of it online. Perhaps it goes back to what StevenofNine said about rational discourse. One signal that a person is working rationally instead of from their emotions is control of speech and adhering to certain conventions of courtesy. I'm not making an absolute statement - I'm sure I've spouted my share of euphemisms, and will probably continue to do so. But as an ideal, I'd rather see more expressive, creative speech - both from myself and others. And no, I'm not trying to tell anybody else how to communicate - that's not my business w/o the mod hat on. This entire topic grew out of my curiousity as we were discussing "family friendly." I'm still finding it enlightening - and I'm learning about myself as I try to pin things down. The family friendly topic grew out of a comment (and ensuing PMs) I made on the Voyager fill-in-the-blank game. Funny how many things there are to explore as we come together with diverse opinions, backgrounds, and perspectives.

Just to clarify so that people don't worry about witch hunts: Nobody is banned by majority vote. Banning happens like this (except in extremely egregious cases): 1. Moderator Warning - not a casual warning, but an official warning that will leave you with no doubts as to what behavior triggered the warning and what behavior you should refrain from. The warning should let you know that failure to change your behavior will lead to banning. 2. See #1, message will ideally let you know that this is your last chance - next infraction will lead to a suspension of privileges. 3. You're suspended and will need to jump through a couple hoops to get back. At any stage, a PM to the moderator may clear things up and stop the process. And I don't think we'll keep track of warnings beyond 90 days or so (ie you'll slate may get cleaned up after 3 months of good behavior) None of us hand out warnings casually, but I give casual (uncounted) warnings in PM. Basically, act with respect, courtesy, civility, and common sense, and you don't have to worry about any of this.

I've read the books (although I understand that he did an end run and wrote another), but I haven't seen the movie yet.

And that is why US network news is as useless as a nerfâ„¢ hammer. The networks use their ability to dispense venue to mute any news that could affect 1) subsidiary companies of the network company, 2) companies to which the network is subsidiary, 3) the political party that gives the network tax cuts, 4) companies that could decide to sue the network even groundlessly, 5) the companies that advertise on the network's mediums, and 6) the network itself. i.e. Network news is nerfed bad, and with the mergers etc. of network stations and their parent/child companies, it's nerfed -really- bad, and often in other mediums than TV. (i.e. -papers-) sure... but that has nothing to do with freedom of speech. It has to do with them using their position of influence poorly. Get the parts and open a pirate UHF TV station. See how long it is until the Federales come bashing your door in and confiscating your equipment. The people's airwaves have been federalized and sold off to the highest bidder. This is roughly the equivalent of saying "Yes, we have free speech, but only the town crier can speak in the town square" a hundred or so years ago. EDIT: Speech on the airwaves has been considered "interstate commerce" and controlled by the government by giving special rights to certain corporate interests allowing them to control access to the airwaves. The VENUE that was BY RIGHT mine has been given to ANOTHER so that the OTHER can MAKE MONEY exercising freedom of EXPRESSION while denying me MY USE OF THAT SAME VENUE. That really makes me feel like a fly in the urinal.

This doesn't represent any new limits - simply a discussion of what the ones we have mean to us - GeneralLee had suggested to me that there was probably a wide diversity of opinions. Neither of us wanted to be limited to the lowest common denominator - or have this become a place where anything that might offend "somebody" was censored. Hence a discussion. (As well as one on how to say "F.U.C.K." on the board.)

FUBAR FOULED UP BEYOND ALL RECOGNITION (the vegetarian version)

This is utterly fascinating - my prior guess was that I was going to be more "liberal" in what I thought this example of word usage should be - and I'm not. Again, this is a temperature taking poll, not something laying the groundrules for censorship. I was always fascinated by some of James Clavell's books where asian cultures would say "fornicate you" ... I do sometimes suggest that people go fornicate themselves to their faces if they catch me in the right mood. I had a college roommate who had a bunch of creative ones: "I feel like a fly in the urinal" - p*ss*d off "It hoovers"/"that vacuums" - it sucks He had more, but it's been too long.

I'm locking the thread. If you need to say something more, PM me and I'll unlock it for a bit.

OK , time for me to pitch in my 2 cents. ... snip ... Judgement for whether it *is* needed is down to those "in control" of course , and that's exactly what the very title of "Moderator" conveys. If you don't want that sort of responsibility then you seriously consider if you really want to be a Moderator at all. If you do want to continue then you have to accept that you *may* be called upon again to ban someone - hopefully not , but the possibility exists. OK , I could go on a LOT longer about this but I'll stop here :) MM I'm still against banning - in a perfect world it would never be needed - this isn't a perfect world. But having learned how damaging it is not to ban (when direly needed), I will ban when necessary. It's the lesser of two evils sometimes. Doesn't mean I have to like it - just means that as long as I wear a moderator hat I have to be willing to do it. But I'm more comfortable being uncomfortable with it.

Please choose the most "vulgar" expression you think is appropriate here from the selections. I know, I left out ones that start with ph, and 3l33t ways of putting it and my absolute favorite, "All fupped duck."

I wonder, is that Family Friendly? :D Just as family friendly as the "What the fudgecicles?" I hear kids say ... And for stuf like RTFM, it's Read The Fine Manual or FUBAR is Fouled Up Beyond All Recognition.

replicate a gallon of Ben & Jerry's Cherry's Garcia. She sat in the corner, spooning it ever so slowly into her mouth, feeling it dissolve on her tounge, and slip down her throat. She licked her lips, and then let her tongue linger on the spoon, feeling the cold and the creamy moisture. Her mood lightened and the physical sensations led her into a reverie about ______.

IMHO, censorship of ideas is basically NOT FAMILY FRIENDLY. So yes, if human sexuality topics come up, the pro and con positions deserve to be heard. Actually, at this point, I'd be tempted to lock the topic and say "the time is not right for this discussion - please let us recover from the last time this got out of hand." Not sure I'd do that, but I'd be tempted. I 100% agree with you that a definition of "family friendly" is likely to elude us. Yet, by having a great discussion of the issues, when I read something, I'll have a lot of input to add to my own beliefs and prejudices. I hope that will help me to post more kindly to those who I disagree with.

I'm thinking I say a lot of stuff to my kids that would apall other parents. I recently had a great discussion of gay marriage with my 12-year-old daugher and her best friend, age 11. Her friend had a lot of deep and beautiful things to say that surpassed what I expect from most adults. Not many parents would have had that discussion. Last fall, when my daughter was 11, we had a conversation about coming of age, beginning to menstruate, and being a woman. She was kind of embarassed (this wasn't the facts of life talk), but she told me later she was happy that I'd brought it up because it gave her a new way to look at it and that she wouldn't feel so embarassed in the future. She very much appreciated my respecting her as a woman and not being afraid to talk to her about "womanly things." Most dads I know won't even buy tampons for their wives ... Or - discussing homosexuality is bad because it will corrupt children vs. discussing homosexuality is good because it helps children to grow up less prejudiced and less likely to call people "fag" or "queer." I'm not putting down your statement - I just think that it opens up an entirely different can of worms. Let's keep this discussion going, though, because the point of this was awareness (of our differences, of our similarities), not unanimity.

GeneralLee and I have been discussing this concept for the last few days. We thought it would be helpful to see how others think of it. From the Posting Rules: 2. No foul, obscene, or demeaning language. -- Let's try to keep the site 'family friendly'. Also, please refrain from making comments regarding race, religion, sexual orientation, or web browser usage. What does "Family Friendly" mean to you? Where do you draw the line for yourself? Where should the line be drawn in the forums? Please comment. This is an advisory poll, to help the community get a feel for where how we think. It is not launched because of grave breaches of "Family Friendly," but to expand our understanding of ourselves It will also help the mods get a better picture of how their standards coincide with what everybody else is thinking. (As usual, this is NiteShdw's board, so he has the ultimate say in the matter - it's not a real democracy - it's a community - dare I say a "family?"

I'm against banning. Period. I don't like it. Nevertheless, I did ask NiteShdw to ban the only person who has been banned so far. I regret doing it - but I would have regretted not doing so even more. Lesser of two evils. In a perfectly enlightened world, a troll causes no problems. But on a forum with real-live human beings, with all their faults and foibles - a member who continually violates posting rules and ignores warnings is in danger of losing membership. A community has to protect itself - as Andreas once pointed us to A Group is its Own Worst Enemy. It's a well written essay directly on-point for this issue. There has been some interesting game theory research that also indicates that a group needs to defend its boundaries to maintain its integrity (the book that's out of is packed, but ask me in a month and I'll have it on my office shelf). I don't like banning. But I don't like the effect of not banning somebody who will not cooperate with our simple etiquette here. And yes, a person can pull a scheme to sneak back in here under a new name. But if their behavior doesn't change - they'll be out again. Meanwhile, even more participants will learn to starve the trolls. Does anybody have anything else they really need to say about banning? I'm in favor of locking the topic and dropping it where anybody who wants to know how our discussion went can read about it throughout time. Not that anybody is being "bad" here - I just haven't seen too much new being said - and the issue that raised the idea of the poll has been dealt with for now.

taken several unauthorized photos of Picard with chest bared. The posted low quality pics on bittorrent trackers, but auctioned off the original negatives on eBay. Captain Picard saw the eBay auction and _____.

and you're alive to tell about it? :p It was quite ... errr ... interesting - but yes, I survived. I have regretted for 35 years that I once chose Pink Bubblegum icecream over Dill Pickle ice cream. Not that it would have tasted good, but for the experience ... Glad I didn't repeat that mistake with the Ginger Wasabi!

Another from Raymond Smullyan's The Riddle of Sheherazde (and I'm not posting them until after I've figured them out w/o looking at the answers):

C's hat must be black. If B+C = White, A knows Black If B sees White on C and A doesn't know -> B knows Black, C knows White If B sees Black on C and A doesn't know -> B could be black or white, so B doesn't know. C knows Black.