Word choice

[knowschad]

Here's the quote I was trying to remember when I made my first post in this thread:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in a rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less."

From Lewis Carroll's "Through the Looking-Glass."

The more I think of this post, the more that I am reminded of the TFTC angst going on in the other thread. In that thread, people accept neither the cachers definition nor the true definition of the 'word'.

Interesting.

Don't forget that Lewis Carrol's Humpty Dumpty was a rather scornful, contemptuous character. Very likely to log TFTC.

[+Renegade Knight]

Ummm, he wasn't preaching. He was using the word in much the same way that people in this thread would.

Can we have a quote to put it in context?

 

I just can't imagine a preacher saying "She's a sermon-whore, she'll do anything to get to listen to another one"

 

I've met church groopies. I don't know if they have another name or not. Temptation runs eveywere.

[+Renegade Knight]

I too have words that I would like to abolish from general usage

Can we add "Ginormous" to the list?

Don't like the request for that new cache size?

[+Renegade Knight]

...But please don't go around assume that prostitutes are doing things against their morals. They are doing things against your morals, and that's your problem, not theirs.

 

You have an interesting concept buried in that remark. That's, that we as a society can't have a universal moral code for the good of us all that's any higher than the lowest common denominator of our societies members.

 

If the actions of another cause harm to society and/or others, then regardless of how good they feel about themselves and their high moral standards, they are creating a problem that they shouldn't ought to be creating.

[John E Cache]

Do "ho" and "whore" really mean the same thing?

Good question. While I don't like the term "whore" in any context, I would have no problem poking fun at someone by calling them a "numbers ho". I may need to rethink this.

I have always been interested how word meanings change. "ho" has the added feature besides meaning when the word is used to poke fun at the speech of the stereotype black. One of the words that got radio host Don Imus fired was "ho". He was trying to poke fun at a black women's basketball team and people were not amused.

[glorkar]

I wonder if "whore" came around from "hoarder"? It's close enough that one could misinterpret it. Just a thought.

Edited December 2, 2009 by glorkar

[Clan Riffster]

"ho" has the added feature besides meaning when the word is used to poke fun at the speech of the stereotype black.

I learn something new every day.

I've heard countless Caucasian kids using this term to describe themselves, their girlfriends, their sisters, etc.

But I've never heard a black person use the term.

Is this a true stereotype, or just an invented one?

[+Moose Mob]

I wonder if "whore" came around from "hoarder"? It's close enough that one could misinterpret it. Just a thought.

The English word whore derives from the Old English word hōra, from the Indo-European root kā meaning "desire".

 

When you use the word "desire", it actually fits pretty well if you can ignore the reference to prostitution.

[+hukilaulau]

...But please don't go around assume that prostitutes are doing things against their morals. They are doing things against your morals, and that's your problem, not theirs.

 

You have an interesting concept buried in that remark. That's, that we as a society can't have a universal moral code for the good of us all that's any higher than the lowest common denominator of our societies members.

 

If the actions of another cause harm to society and/or others, then regardless of how good they feel about themselves and their high moral standards, they are creating a problem that they shouldn't ought to be creating.

Interesting indeed! I believe that one of the fundamental tenets of our society is that we as a society cannot, in fact, have a "universal moral code for the good of us all." You can form a group where all members agree to abide by a particular moral code. You can all live on a farm together and wear the same clothes. But when you come to town you can't impose your beliefs on me.

It is also interesting that you apparently believe prostitution is morally the "lowest" activity a person can engage in.

 

OK, there are some holes in the argument (Think Utah). But that's why there are discussion forums!

[+hukilaulau]

 

Is this a true stereotype, or just an invented one?

This thread, which started out with a simple question, has produced some mind-boggling concepts.

When is a stereotype "true" rather than "invented"?

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

"ho" has the added feature besides meaning when the word is used to poke fun at the speech of the stereotype black.

I learn something new every day.

I've heard countless Caucasian kids using this term to describe themselves, their girlfriends, their sisters, etc.

But I've never heard a black person use the term.

Is this a true stereotype, or just an invented one?

Aren't all stereotypes based on truth? That's why profiling works. It may not be politically-correct, but it works!

 

Anne Coulter: You two ladies look awfully interesting. Are you Indians?

Woman #1: Yes, I'm a Navajo.

Woman #2: I'm an Arapahoe.

Anne Couter: What a coincidence! I'm a right-wing ho!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Edited December 2, 2009 by TheAlabamaRambler

[+Harry Dolphin]

Once upon a time, there was a concept called "Polite Society". Certain words were not considered polite. We all knew what they meant, but we did not use them. If we did, we got out mouths washed out with soap!

Reminds me of the time my father and my siter, the nun, were playing Scrabble. Oh, we were gamesters! Anything to win! My sister played the word 'whore'. (She pronounced it 'WORE', which means that she had probably never heard it pronounced.) My father said that that was not an Acceptable Word! She had to play a different word.

Polite Society. There are times and places for almost anything, to be sure. But you do NOT use those words in Polite Society.

Renegade Knight hit the nail on the head: Least common denominator. There is no Polite Society anymore. And more's the pity. Anything goes these days. I hear obscenities from six-year olds. And their parents do nothing about it. (Probably where the kids learnt it...) Just because the word exists in a dictionary doe not mean that you should feel free to use it whenever you wish.

Profanities are common on this forum board. I find that a shame. If you don't respect your own deity, at least respect that of other users.

What can be done about it? Probably nothing. The world has changed; anything goes these days. And that is reallly sad.

[GOF and Bacall]

"ho" has the added feature besides meaning when the word is used to poke fun at the speech of the stereotype black.

I learn something new every day.

I've heard countless Caucasian kids using this term to describe themselves, their girlfriends, their sisters, etc.

But I've never heard a black person use the term.

Is this a true stereotype, or just an invented one?

Aren't all stereotypes based on truth? That's why profiling works. It may not be politically-correct, but it works!

 

Anne Coulter: You two ladies look awfully interesting. Are you Indians?

Woman #1: Yes, I'm a Navajo.

Woman #2: I'm an Arapahoe.

Anne Couter: What a coincidence! I'm a right-wing ho!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

Numbers Ho is a bad thing and yet that joke isn't? Wow!

[John E Cache]

"ho" has the added feature besides meaning when the word is used to poke fun at the speech of the stereotype black.

I learn something new every day.

I've heard countless Caucasian kids using this term to describe themselves, their girlfriends, their sisters, etc.

But I've never heard a black person use the term.

Is this a true stereotype, or just an invented one?

It sounds like I am behind the times, especially with young people. The reason I used "stereotype" is because none of the black people I know talk that way. A long time ago when NBA player Moses Malone's team swept 3 teams four games to none, he called it "fo fo fo". "fo fo fo" is still a repeated joke. This is a scary thread(lots of word mavens)

[+sbell111]

Once upon a time, there was a concept called "Polite Society". Certain words were not considered polite. We all knew what they meant, but we did not use them. If we did, we got out mouths washed out with soap!

Reminds me of the time my father and my siter, the nun, were playing Scrabble. Oh, we were gamesters! Anything to win! My sister played the word 'whore'. (She pronounced it 'WORE', which means that she had probably never heard it pronounced.) My father said that that was not an Acceptable Word! She had to play a different word.

Polite Society. There are times and places for almost anything, to be sure. But you do NOT use those words in Polite Society.

Renegade Knight hit the nail on the head: Least common denominator. There is no Polite Society anymore. And more's the pity. Anything goes these days. I hear obscenities from six-year olds. And their parents do nothing about it. (Probably where the kids learnt it...) Just because the word exists in a dictionary doe not mean that you should feel free to use it whenever you wish.

Profanities are common on this forum board. I find that a shame. If you don't respect your own deity, at least respect that of other users.

What can be done about it? Probably nothing. The world has changed; anything goes these days. And that is reallly sad.

+1

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

... A long time ago when NBA player Moses Malone's team swept 3 teams four games to none, he called it "fo fo fo". "fo fo fo" is still a repeated joke.

My Dad's medical group did not treat black patients until the early '70s, before that his office staff was trained to get new patients making appointments by telephone to say something which included the word 'for' or the number four. If the caller said "fo" the schedule would be full and no new patients were being taken.

[+bflentje]

Anne Coulter: You two ladies look awfully interesting. Are you Indians?

Woman #1: Yes, I'm a Navajo.

Woman #2: I'm an Arapahoe.

Anne Couter: What a coincidence! I'm a right-wing ho!

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

I have a whole different level of respect for you now.. wow.

[Pajaholic]

Once upon a time, there was a concept called "Polite Society". Certain words were not considered polite. We all knew what they meant, but we did not use them. If we did, we got out mouths washed out with soap!

Reminds me of the time my father and my siter, the nun, were playing Scrabble. Oh, we were gamesters! Anything to win! My sister played the word 'whore'. (She pronounced it 'WORE', which means that she had probably never heard it pronounced.) My father said that that was not an Acceptable Word! She had to play a different word.

Polite Society. There are times and places for almost anything, to be sure. But you do NOT use those words in Polite Society.

Renegade Knight hit the nail on the head: Least common denominator. There is no Polite Society anymore. And more's the pity. Anything goes these days. I hear obscenities from six-year olds. And their parents do nothing about it. (Probably where the kids learnt it...) Just because the word exists in a dictionary doe not mean that you should feel free to use it whenever you wish.

Profanities are common on this forum board. I find that a shame. If you don't respect your own deity, at least respect that of other users.

What can be done about it? Probably nothing. The world has changed; anything goes these days. And that is reallly sad.

+1

The thing is that every culture has its own taboos and the same word can change meaning as it crosses an inter-cultural border. What you consider profanity might be perfectly innocuous to someone else. For example, in some parts of the USA I understand that "mother" is profane yet where I live it's not. Similarly, my Texan nephew-in-law completely stopped the conversation at our dinner table by requesting my niece to "get off her fanny". Although that allegedly means "get off your backside" in Texas, it has a whole different meaning in my part of the World - and is far more profane than "whore". What's polite in one part of the World may not be polite in another - so try not to make inferences based on your personal sensibility. Try not to make mountains out of molehills or storms in teacups.

 

This is an international forum, used by people from several distinct cultures. As I posted up-thread, IMO English and American are two distinct, if related, languages. The distinction has often resulted in those who would judge others by their own sensibilities taking offence where none was intended. Considering all the various dialects from around the World, I suppose that this shouldn't surprise. IMO, we need to be mindful of this and be prepared to make allowances for the inevitable cultural diversity of those engaged in this activity.

 

Geoff

[+Castle Mischief]

"ho" has the added feature besides meaning when the word is used to poke fun at the speech of the stereotype black.

I learn something new every day.

I've heard countless Caucasian kids using this term to describe themselves, their girlfriends, their sisters, etc.

But I've never heard a black person use the term.

Is this a true stereotype, or just an invented one?

 

I've heard people of both colors in the south drop the "r". As in, "we used ta have lunch at fo, but we don't no mo". I've heard people of both colors in lower-class areas of the north do the same. At some point rap musicians who either were actually from lower-class neighborhoods or who weren't and wished to represent themselves as such (keeping it real, yo) became recognized by the mainstream as dropping the trailing ends of their words off as well. IE: "I'm a gansta, you a ho, I'm a rappa" etc. Half the time for purposes of rhyme, the other half for edginess.

 

I'm not sure under what circumstances this became a stereotypical "black" thing. Perhaps due to rap being dominated by black artists.

 

Enter the wanna-be white suburban kid wanting to rebel against mommy and daddy. What's the best way to do that? Act like something that you aren't- an inner-city black kid (or at least the stereotype). Hence, "ho" enters the lexicon of every Vanilla Ice in the burbs.

 

So call it an "adopted" stereotype.

[+Gitchee-Gummee]

Do "ho" and "whore" really mean the same thing?

Good question. While I don't like the term "whore" in any context, I would have no problem poking fun at someone by calling them a "numbers ho". I may need to rethink this.

I have always been interested how word meanings change. "ho" has the added feature besides meaning when the word is used to poke fun at the speech of the stereotype black. One of the words that got radio host Don Imus fired was "ho". He was trying to poke fun at a black women's basketball team and people were not amused.

 

True, there is rampant misuse but the word "ho" (and other words), but they are part of Ebonics dialect -- not specifically used by or created by a single race. More rather by a compilation of races, usually presumed as inner-city folk, not unlike a suthern drawl, yankee fasttalk, or cowboy slowtalk.

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Interesting indeed! I believe that one of the fundamental tenets of our society is that we as a society cannot, in fact, have a "universal moral code for the good of us all." You can form a group where all members agree to abide by a particular moral code. You can all live on a farm together and wear the same clothes. But when you come to town you can't impose your beliefs on me.

It is also interesting that you apparently believe prostitution is morally the "lowest" activity a person can engage in.

OK, there are some holes in the argument (Think Utah). But that's why there are discussion forums!

 

You would be wrong. The topic brought out an interesting thought, one you seem to buy into. That public morals haven no place being 'crammed down the throats' of individuals. That an individual can't speak out against the immoral actions of another. You are of course wrong. Beliefs and morals are imposed on you, and us all, all the time. There is a reason. As simply as I can put it, there is a moral code that if we all lived by it, it would do us all the most good and generate the most happness possible for the most people. Finding that moral code for us all is subject to a lot of debate. I don't think any society has ever found the perfect balance. We can and should try though. However a society no better than it's lowest common denominator for each moral question is really not the kind of place most of us would enjoy. Not unless we were evil.

[+Renegade Knight]

...The thing is that every culture has its own taboos and the same word can change meaning as it crosses an inter-cultural border. What you consider profanity might be perfectly innocuous to someone else....Considering all the various dialects from around the World, I suppose that this shouldn't surprise. IMO, we need to be mindful of this and be prepared to make allowances for the inevitable cultural diversity of those engaged in this activity....

 

So what you are saying is be mindful of your neighbors which is pretty much what HarryDolphin said. I have no doubt that HarryDolphin would also be mindful if a German said some key words that are fine in German but in the 'USA pack a punch and realize that because it's not at all profane in German they are good to go.

[+sbell111]

...

Interesting indeed! I believe that one of the fundamental tenets of our society is that we as a society cannot, in fact, have a "universal moral code for the good of us all." You can form a group where all members agree to abide by a particular moral code. You can all live on a farm together and wear the same clothes. But when you come to town you can't impose your beliefs on me.

It is also interesting that you apparently believe prostitution is morally the "lowest" activity a person can engage in.

OK, there are some holes in the argument (Think Utah). But that's why there are discussion forums!

 

You would be wrong. The topic brought out an interesting thought, one you seem to buy into. That public morals haven no place being 'crammed down the throats' of individuals. That an individual can't speak out against the immoral actions of another. You are of course wrong. Beliefs and morals are imposed on you, and us all, all the time. There is a reason. As simply as I can put it, there is a moral code that if we all lived by it, it would do us all the most good and generate the most happness possible for the most people. Finding that moral code for us all is subject to a lot of debate. I don't think any society has ever found the perfect balance. We can and should try though. However a society no better than it's lowest common denominator for each moral question is really not the kind of place most of us would enjoy. Not unless we were evil.

I think that what you are saying is that we should be upset that you used 'whore' a few minutes ago in the other thread.

[+Renegade Knight]

...I think that what you are saying is that we should be upset that you used 'whore' a few minutes ago in the other thread.

What you should be doing is telling me if I have invoked your your moral outrage.

 

Peer pressuer is an amazing thing. If I say something like that round the campfire and everone looks at me like I'm freaking daft, I would probably find a different word. The goal is communicating an idea more than it's using any one word to do it. Alas for that concept I have no better words at this point in time.

[+flask]

i think people are equating whoredom with prostitution.

 

while it certainly applies, "whoredom" has a much broader sense, as in the old testament where it is used fairly regularly to describe chasing after false idols.

 

in the OT when they mean prostitute, they say so.

 

so while a prostitute may be whoring out his/er body for money, likewise i might whore my caching day out for smilies.

 

or leave the church in which i hold membership to whore myself out after a better choir.

 

too bad for you if you have too narrow a scope.

[John E Cache]

i think people are equating whoredom with prostitution.

 

while it certainly applies, "whoredom" has a much broader sense, as in the old testament where it is used fairly regularly to describe chasing after false idols.

 

in the OT when they mean prostitute, they say so.

 

so while a prostitute may be whoring out his/er body for money, likewise i might whore my caching day out for smilies.

 

or leave the church in which i hold membership to whore myself out after a better choir.

 

too bad for you if you have too narrow a scope.

Interesting. I assumed "whore" was one of those bad words in the Bible nobody speaks. As a kid, 50 years ago, we couldn't say the word "hell", but could say, "H E double hockey sticks". I did a Bible search out of curiosity and "whore" doesn't appear in some Bible versions, but appears a lot in the King James Version. A whore in church is an abomination in one verse. My view is to not speak a word when you know it will offend some listener, but censoring the internet is should not be done because no mater what you say it seems it will offend someone.

[Clan Riffster]

Ed, after perusing three pages of mostly valid and well versed debate on both sides of this issue, I don't think you'll win a public consensus for not using the term you find troublesome. If, after some reflection, you find it still rankles you, I would suggest you address your concerns to Groundspeak. If they agree with you, they may add it to their naughty word filter, so the next time someone types "whore", all that would appear on screen would be something to the effect of, "w***e".

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Ed, after perusing three pages of mostly valid and well versed debate on both sides of this issue, I don't think you'll win a public consensus for not using the term you find troublesome. If, after some reflection, you find it still rankles you, I would suggest you address your concerns to Groundspeak. If they agree with you, they may add it to their naughty word filter, so the next time someone types "whore", all that would appear on screen would be something to the effect of, "w***e".

Nah, it's not a subject I care that much about that I would try to get it banned, though I did ask the Moderators to consider whether it fits here under our guideline... which was mostly just prickling the Mods in fun because there is no way they could ever give an answer on that! For a Moderator to answer "calling people a whore is okay under the guidelines" or "no it's not", either way, would start a firestorm and they are well aware of that!

 

Some folks took my simple request and acted like I was a crusader out to trample their free speech, others did what I asked and pondered whether they personally felt that it was a word they wanted to use... and that's all I asked people to do.

 

Some will continue, some never did, in the end it was just a chance for everyone to think about how their posts come across online.

 

[+Unkle Fester]

Ed, after perusing three pages of mostly valid and well versed debate on both sides of this issue, I don't think you'll win a public consensus for not using the term you find troublesome. If, after some reflection, you find it still rankles you, I would suggest you address your concerns to Groundspeak. If they agree with you, they may add it to their naughty word filter, so the next time someone types "whore", all that would appear on screen would be something to the effect of, "w***e".

Hey Riffster, can we coin a new term, "WE"? TAR couldn't have much problem with calling them numbers WE's, could he? FTF WE's?

 

Hold on, another epiphany! WE is too long, since it is 2 letters, we'll call it 2. Numbers is too long so it would be #, so can we just shorten the phrase to #2 to save time?

 

Used properly in sentences:

 

That #2 is #1 in my book...

A #2 passed through my caches today...

I was being a #2 and got 50 today...

Some of my caches are set up for #2's...

 

Yeah, I'm done.

[Clan Riffster]

Or, "After finding 327 P&Gs today, I had to go # 2"...?

[Pajaholic]

Or, "After finding 327 P&Gs today, I had to go # 2"...?

I'm now totally confused, what's the significance of "hash two"?

[+benh57]

Numbers whore. Terrain whore. The word 'whore' is used in this forum fairly frequently...almost always incorrectly. It is used for shock value, not because it is the appropriate word for what the user wishes to convey.

 

Merriam-Webster at http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/whore defines 'whore' as follows:

 

....

 

None of the uses of that word fall within the guidelines of acceptable use for this forum.

 

Thank you.

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whore

 

Definition #2

 

. Whore

 

Someone who does something excessively.

You camping whore!

[Clan Riffster]

I'm now totally confused, what's the significance of "hash two"?

Does smoking hash cause people to go # 2?

[+redsox_mark]

 

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=whore

 

Definition #2

 

. Whore

 

Someone who does something excessively.

You camping whore!

 

I found this interesting. I have never used the word in that way, or heard anyone do it (other than in this forum). But the Urban Dictionary has loads of entries for "X whore", where X can be most anything. E.g.

Facebook Whore

 

The fact that I've not heard this before could be due to my age; though it's not something my teenage children use either (at least not in front of me!). I suspect it is more common on the US side of the Atlantic than it is here in the UK.

 

Like it or not (and I don't particularly like it), if a use like this becomes common slang, it will appear in lots of places. And in this use, it simply means "Someone who does something excessively". (Or maybe obsessively would be a better description).

 

Mark

[+hukilaulau]

Used properly in sentences:

 

That #2 is #1 in my book...

A #2 passed through my caches today...

I was being a #2 and got 50 today...

Some of my caches are set up for #2's...

 

Yeah, I'm done.

I saw this on the side of a septic tank pumper truck:

 

"#1 in the #2 Business!"

Edited December 4, 2009 by hukilaulau

[Pajaholic]

I'm now totally confused, what's the significance of "hash two"?

Does smoking hash cause people to go # 2?

Obviously, "# 2" is a colloquial expression, I suspect particular to your country or region. Where I come from "#" is called a "hash mark", however I understand it's also called a "pound symbol" in the USA (from which I wonder how many US residents think the UK symbol of currency is a hash mark!)

 

Both your posts that include "# 2" have me confused. I'm still none the wiser what you mean by "hash two" or "pound 2". But then I guess that shouldn't surprise me either since you come from a country that calls bonnets hoods, and boots trunks. A country where the road is the pavement, the pavement the side-walk, and approx one fifth of every gallon is lost as it crosses the pond leftwards!

 

Geoff

[+hukilaulau]

...

Interesting indeed! I believe that one of the fundamental tenets of our society is that we as a society cannot, in fact, have a "universal moral code for the good of us all." You can form a group where all members agree to abide by a particular moral code. You can all live on a farm together and wear the same clothes. But when you come to town you can't impose your beliefs on me.

It is also interesting that you apparently believe prostitution is morally the "lowest" activity a person can engage in.

OK, there are some holes in the argument (Think Utah). But that's why there are discussion forums!

 

You would be wrong. The topic brought out an interesting thought, one you seem to buy into. That public morals haven no place being 'crammed down the throats' of individuals. That an individual can't speak out against the immoral actions of another. You are of course wrong. Beliefs and morals are imposed on you, and us all, all the time. There is a reason. As simply as I can put it, there is a moral code that if we all lived by it, it would do us all the most good and generate the most happness possible for the most people. Finding that moral code for us all is subject to a lot of debate. I don't think any society has ever found the perfect balance. We can and should try though. However a society no better than it's lowest common denominator for each moral question is really not the kind of place most of us would enjoy. Not unless we were evil.

I believe you are either confused or lazy. You connected the term "lowest common denomiator" to a specific concept, namely prostitution. The post you quoted did not say a society cannot have any moral code that was agreed upon by everyone, just not that one in particular. There are a lot of things a person could do that most people would agree would be "lower" on the morality scale.

 

Actually, it was me who suggested that one of the founding principles of the USA is that one set of beliefs should not be imposed on all individuals. You will just have to excuse me if I don't believe I "should" try to find a moral code for you to live by.

 

I must admit I do have an evil streak, as evidenced by my calculated attempt to elicit a pompous, Humpty-Dumpty like reaction by you. I believe that your telling me flat out (twice) that I am "wrong" is rude and immoral. I certainly believe that an idividual can speak out against the immoral actions of another. I just did!

Edited December 4, 2009 by hukilaulau

[+sbell111]

Ed, after perusing three pages of mostly valid and well versed debate on both sides of this issue, I don't think you'll win a public consensus for not using the term you find troublesome. If, after some reflection, you find it still rankles you, I would suggest you address your concerns to Groundspeak. If they agree with you, they may add it to their naughty word filter, so the next time someone types "whore", all that would appear on screen would be something to the effect of, "w***e".

If the filter still works the way it used to, it would replace the unnacceptable word with an acceptable on, rather than merely asterisk out letters.

 

In fact, the moderators have, in the past, taken the position that merely replacing a few characters in an unnaceptable word to get it by the filter was just as bad as posting the unacceptable word. Many would argue that it's worse, since posting the unacceptable word merely result in it's replacement with an acceptable one.

Edited December 4, 2009 by sbell111

[+sbell111]

I believe you are either confused or lazy. ...

I believe that you are walking right up to the forum guideline and hopping over.

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Hey Moderator,

 

I think this one's been talked out and has devolved to the slapping at each other stage.

 

Anyone willing to consider the issue got my point, thought about their personal feelings on the word and will either continue to use it or not, and that's all this thread was about.

 

If it results in any reduction in its use, great. If it doesn't that's okay too, all one can do is ask his peers to consider an issue.

 

Please close this thread.

[+bflentje]

Hey Moderator,

 

I think this one's been talked out and has devolved to the slapping at each other stage.

 

Anyone willing to consider the issue got my point, thought about their personal feelings on the word and will either continue to use it or not, and that's all this thread was about.

 

If it results in any reduction in its use, great. If it doesn't that's okay too, all one can do is ask his peers to consider an issue.

 

Please close this thread.

 

last word.

[GOF and Bacall]

Ed, after perusing three pages of mostly valid and well versed debate on both sides of this issue, I don't think you'll win a public consensus for not using the term you find troublesome. If, after some reflection, you find it still rankles you, I would suggest you address your concerns to Groundspeak. If they agree with you, they may add it to their naughty word filter, so the next time someone types "whore", all that would appear on screen would be something to the effect of, "w***e".

If the filter still works the way it used to, it would replace the unnacceptable word with an acceptable on, rather than merely asterisk out letters.

 

In fact, the moderators have, in the past, taken the position that merely replacing a few characters in an unnaceptable word to get it by the filter was just as bad as posting the unacceptable word. Many would argue that it's worse, since posting the unacceptable word merely result in it's replacement with an acceptable one.

 

I would only argue the position that the replacement word is acceptable. To the site perhaps. To the poster? Seldom.

[GOF and Bacall]

Hey Moderator,

 

I think this one's been talked out and has devolved to the slapping at each other stage.

 

Anyone willing to consider the issue got my point, thought about their personal feelings on the word and will either continue to use it or not, and that's all this thread was about.

 

If it results in any reduction in its use, great. If it doesn't that's okay too, all one can do is ask his peers to consider an issue.

 

Please close this thread.

 

last word.

 

The last word in this thread will most likely be had by someone with the word "MODERATOR" under their avatar.

[+The Blorenges]

I'm now totally confused, what's the significance of "hash two"?

Does smoking hash cause people to go # 2?

Obviously, "# 2" is a colloquial expression, I suspect particular to your country or region. Where I come from "#" is called a "hash mark", however I understand it's also called a "pound symbol" in the USA (from which I wonder how many US residents think the UK symbol of currency is a hash mark!)

 

Both your posts that include "# 2" have me confused. I'm still none the wiser what you mean by "hash two" or "pound 2". But then I guess that shouldn't surprise me either since you come from a country that calls bonnets hoods, and boots trunks. A country where the road is the pavement, the pavement the side-walk, and approx one fifth of every gallon is lost as it crosses the pond leftwards!

 

Geoff

 

I'll just quickly slip in a response to the # query...

 

I've got use to the way they use # on these forums to mean "number".

 

Whereas in UK we might put, "See my comments in post no. 412" these folks this side of The Pond put, "See my comments in post #412".

 

(They also have a sad shortage of letter U over on the left side )

 

MrsB

Edited December 4, 2009 by The Blorenges

[+Renegade Knight]

...

Interesting indeed! I believe that one of the fundamental tenets of our society is that we as a society cannot, in fact, have a "universal moral code for the good of us all." You can form a group where all members agree to abide by a particular moral code. You can all live on a farm together and wear the same clothes. But when you come to town you can't impose your beliefs on me.

It is also interesting that you apparently believe prostitution is morally the "lowest" activity a person can engage in.

OK, there are some holes in the argument (Think Utah). But that's why there are discussion forums!

 

You would be wrong. The topic brought out an interesting thought, one you seem to buy into. That public morals haven no place being 'crammed down the throats' of individuals. That an individual can't speak out against the immoral actions of another. You are of course wrong. Beliefs and morals are imposed on you, and us all, all the time. There is a reason. As simply as I can put it, there is a moral code that if we all lived by it, it would do us all the most good and generate the most happness possible for the most people. Finding that moral code for us all is subject to a lot of debate. I don't think any society has ever found the perfect balance. We can and should try though. However a society no better than it's lowest common denominator for each moral question is really not the kind of place most of us would enjoy. Not unless we were evil.

...You connected the term "lowest common denomiator" to a specific concept, namely prostitution. The post you quoted did not say a society cannot have any moral code that was agreed upon by everyone, just not that one in particular. There are a lot of things a person could do that most people would agree would be "lower" on the morality scale....

 

Actually, it was me who suggested that one of the founding principles of the USA is that one set of beliefs should not be imposed on all individuals. You will just have to excuse me if I don't believe I "should" try to find a moral code for you to live by. ...

 

You are wrong in your assumption about what I think. I've said it again, will it stick this time? That you didn't make an effort to understand what's real as opposed to what you a**-u-me, is telling. Was I rude and pompous? Most likely. Immoral? Helping you understand where you are wrong isn't immoral. Persisting in your incorrect thoughts however is to some degree. That propensity will cause you to get sideways with the world at times.

 

So I'll try this again. I developed a larger idea from the statement involving a prostitute. You connected the dots and made assumptions. The larger idea I made my post about is "My morals allow for this and I'm fine, that your's doesn't is your own dang problem" You can go back and see that in the post if you were willing. When I addressed that, you will notice I never once mentioned any specific immorality. That's because I wasn't thinking of one in particular. There are more than enough to go around.

 

You have an interesting idea that the USA was founded on the idea of one set of beliefs not be imposed on all individuals. The bill of rights does exactly that. When you figure out why that's the case and why that's a good thing, you will be a lot closer to understanding my pompous remarks. You actually partially agree or you wouldn't have the concept of a moral scale and that something could be lower than the prostitution you focused on.

 

Back on topic. After hashing this around in this forum, I'm going to have to agree with TAR and if I find any other word that actually does a better job describing numbers whore for what it is, I'm on board. I have a few language artifacts that are not exactly kosher but for which no other words have come along to describe the idea as good as or better.

[+Moose Mob]

And we park on driveways and drive on parkways...

 

back on topic...

 

How many of you forum "addicts" are going to drop this conversation and go geocaching?

[Pajaholic]

I'll just quickly slip in a response to the # query...

 

I've got use to the way they use # on these forums to mean "number".

 

Whereas in UK we might put, "See my comments in post no. 412" these folks this side of The Pond put, "See my comments in post #412".

 

(They also have a sad shortage of letter U over on the left side )

 

MrsB

Many thanks. I've mentally filed that use of the hash in my catalogue of transpondian differences

 

Geoff

[+TheAlabamaRambler]

Hey Moderator,

 

I think this one's been talked out and has devolved to the slapping at each other stage.

 

Anyone willing to consider the issue got my point, thought about their personal feelings on the word and will either continue to use it or not, and that's all this thread was about.

 

If it results in any reduction in its use, great. If it doesn't that's okay too, all one can do is ask his peers to consider an issue.

 

Please close this thread.

 

last word.

 

The last word in this thread will most likely be had by someone with the word "MODERATOR" under their avatar.

Just about certain.

[+Moose Mob]

Enough off topic. I think the OP's question was answered, and then some.