A.) When did the trains in China get swamped with English swearing?
B.) Isn't that a bit like what the French did when they invaded Britain and put the class system on common language and thus invented the antiquated taboos that morally indignant people would then fabricate connections to the bible and its rules just to further implement the classism in language that the French used as a weapon to oppress the working class masses in England back in the 15th century? They did so to sustain their aristocracy and did so without any respect to the community.
Demands and threats to leave a forum if others do not follow your whim are not only childish, but insulting and show absolutely no respect to the theological, cultural, linguistic and regional origins of other posters.
It's classist, elitist, repressive, and in light of how little profanity is actually used here: exaggerated and irrational behavior.
Is "respect" only a one-way street? That seems to be the case some are making here.
C.) With a majority of posters living and working in a country with little freedom of speech, is it too much to ask that the vocal minority not be a defacto red guard and lighten up? Really, HOW HARD IS IT FOR A MATURE INDIVIDUAL TO IGNORE POSTERS WHO SPEAK FREELY AND IN A MANNER THAT OFFENDS YOU THOUGH THEY DO NOT POST TO OFFEND YOU, IT'S JUST YOU WHO READ THEIRS POSTS AS SUCH. Cursing is not dominating the boards, hostility is not seeping through the walls, and cursing CAN BE USED ELOQUENTLY. Watch 1 hour of George Carlin's stand up and I DARE you to prove me wrong regarding cursing used eloquently.
Is it too much to ask for people to lighten up? To respect that this forum is as much a place to NOT have to police one's self from fragile egos who object to any perceived slight based upon their inability to place context of use when reading certain words?
I find the only "hostility" coming from individuals threatening to stop participating in the saloon if they don't get their own way. I find hostility coming from their odd need to dictate what can or cannot be said when they are neither the proprietor nor a moderator of this forum.
If the moderators and owner allow it, then you have to accept it. It's their private place opened to the public. Clearly this would apply if they wanted to implement a form of censorship, but IT ALSO APPLIES WHEN THEY OFFER THE PRIVILEGE OF LINGUISTIC CREATIVITY AND FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION.
D.) With the ample freedom the moderators provide posters in expressing themselves, do we really need a moral and cultural red guard to figuratively police us and further beat us over the head because THEY read words out of context and in a direct, offensive manner, when rarely are such words directed at the reader as an object of scorn, ridicule and ostricization?
E.) Going through the Saloon archives, a majority of posters go on about their posting lives with no problems. "Live and let live," and, "to each their own."
F.) Lotus made a good point about censorship of ideas, and words are extension of ideas, and if a minority of members want outright banning of words they are also supporting the curbing of ideas. It's not either-or. It's clear cut. If a minority of posters want casual, creative use of cussing banned, does that not mean others are entitled to ask for fluff posts be banned? Posts mentioning religion be banned? Posts critical of anything be banned, because you know - it's hostility!?!
Going through the archives, it appears it's the same minority wanting more controls over linguistic usage are strumming up their annual drum. It would be apparent that the owner and moderators do not share their rigid points of view and perhaps they can be mature enough to continue posting in a manner which exemplifies the kinds of posting behavior they desire, rather than become a new red guard who make threats about leaving when the people who started this forum disagree with their pleas for censorship.
No posters are being asked to leave, nor are the being forced to leave if the occasional,
creative, colorful use of cursing crops up, yet some are painting a picture as if they are. This is totally untrue and unfair. Reality is this: not one person has been asked or forced to leave, and anyone leaving because they didn't get their moral agenda furthered is doing so on their own volition. It's too bad they could not find the maturity in themselves to rise above it and continue on, but it is their choice. Using an individual's choice to leave because the owner and moderators of a forum did not bend to their moral compass - using that like a veiled threat, is counterproductive and inaccurate.
Clearly Raoul is not making anyone leave, nor are the moderators. So, can we leave that bogus implication out of the debate? I assume this post falls upon "deaf ears," because the annual drum-bangers on this use of cursing topic took their 'ball" and ran "home," in the face of opposition.
If they did indeed take their ball and go home in the face of opposition, that pretty much proves what I was saying to be true: they want things to follow their moral highway, and if they don't they will blame others and waltz off. So, should the same respect be given to their threats of leaving, claims that they are being "forced" to leave, and in their desire to dictate what can and cannot be said on a forum they are neither owner nor moderator of?