Log: "Dangerous ground" is as close as I can come: subjects the discussion of which--however neutral--is nonetheless risky for fear of offense or misunderstanding. Like, in company one doesn't discuss religion or politics. You don't want to suggest that some sex laws might be overly harsh for fear of being suspected of perversion. In today's conservative atmosphere you mustn't suggest any flaws in the American character else you're branded unpatriotic

Log, don't be disappointed if you can't find the perfect expression. Often there's simply no word for the concept

Logwood, examine the words you used when you re-asked your question.

"The word or idiom I forgot is used to describe rules and functions that should remain as they are, and should be unmentionable or unspeakable as for being changed or removed."

That, Logwood, is incoherent.

Collect your thoughts and reword your question.

Well then,

The word or idiom I forgot is used to describe rules and functions that should be unmentionable as for being changed or removed.

Hope that's better. I can't think of a better way to describe it....

Sorry Logwood, I can't understand the words that you used in your question as for being answered or forgotten.

Pay no attention to Milo, Logwood, He's just being persnickety. I understood you just fine. I like taboo better than sacred cow. Sacred cow carries with it the connotation of a foolishly held belief.

Wull … I dunno, Milo. What part didn't you understand?

He wants to know the term for rules the changing of which is not even discussed. Examples of such rules might include the banning of eating human flesh or of the mating of close relatives.

Milo, I understood Logwood. BTW, in case you forgot, he's writing in his second language. Do you have a second language (besides Alabamian)?

And Annastrophic, do you think we can help dear Logwood with our condescension?

How about it Logwood, would you like me to speak highly of your good syntax when it ain't? I thought not. Next time take care with the English you use when you ask a question about English to English speaking adults. Good. Now what is your next question?

Seriously, I could've easily word it the way Faldage did, but anyway, people seem to have understood me just fine... so give me a break and take your condescending attitude elsewhere.

Well, your local knowledge is always enlightening, Milo!

btw, saying I hail from England is akin to saying you hail from Connecticut an' all ~ given the ways less civilised folk are getting bent out of shape about even less than that at the moment, I decline to get excited though. Remind me I owe you a cold beer one of these days...

Milo doesn't drink beer. He drinks PBR or something like that.

that's Pabst Blue Ribband or summat, yes?

Yeah. Sorta a yaller colored drinkoid fluid ya gotta drink it real cold so's ya don't have to taste it.

>Max down below, who must have taken methemilum off his "ignore" list

not necessarily; max was replying to maverick, who was replying to Faldage -- this is the flaw in the ignore-ant.

and, "the sented gulf wind"? what's the postage on that, then?!

Insel,you can still get mail thro with 37Cents? my post office started charging 39 cents more than a week ago..

Dang. I left out the sea in "scented" and I'm still on jmax's "ignore" list. Dang.

Oh well, at least I'm still me.

Well, basic rules of society, maybe?
MORES?

where did you get that quote, Milum?

The quote "Don't go away mad, just go away" was the title in bold of the latest personal message that mister Ted sent me earlier today. You know, the one I posted here.

Funny fellow, that Ted.

And now thoroughly pissed off. That is a serious breach of netiquette there, Milo.

Not to mention, you misquoted me. Have you no shame?

quoting personal messages is not cool. bad form.

Quoting personal messages is not cool, bad form.

QUOTE:
Quoting personal messages is not cool, bad form.
That is a serious breach of netiquette there, Milo.
END QUOTE

Sending nasty personal messages is not cool, bad form.
That is a serious breach of etiquette there, TEd Remington.

Milo:

Why don't you post the entire exchange of messages? You have my permission to do post the messages I sent you. The messages you sent to me are yours to reveal if you choose to do so.

Personally I don't think you have the intestinal fortitude to post the whole exchange, since a complete airing of them would reveal you to the board perhaps a bit more than you really would want.

Quoting personal messages is not cool, bad form.

Sending nasty personal messages is not cool, bad form.

I evidently blinked - can I ask what the hell this storm in a tea cup is all about?

Meanwhile, can I say clearly that for my part one of the charms of this place resides in the diversity of people who post here. I don't expect to agree with everyone - that would be boring and dull. Neither do I expect to always feel happy at what others choose to post. But come on, guys, what is this apart from a pissing contest?

Now here's a happy thought. Why don't you Ted, and you etaoin, and you Elizabeth Creith, and especially you, Father Steve, put me on "ignore".

Problem solved.

Logwood, Please don't be afraid to ask another question or make another comment. I don't know if you got the answer you wanted, but the rest of this is NOT YOUR FAULT.

The problem is solved when you go away. When you bully new people you do your worst to destroy this community. We will not tolerate your meanness by ignoring it.

Well, Milo, I enjoy your posts about birds but once again, you've proved yourself a troublemaker. It is the height of trollness to create a sock puppet to second what you say. I know you're a pain in the ass, and you apparently enjoy that role, but I thought better of you.

Well anastrophic, you and your jomama are much too wily to not know what to do. It's a two step method, (1) simply mash the button that says "themilum ignore", and (2) your life will be free of your troublemaker.

And dear Betsy, if this board is objective, that is your only choice.

It's a difficult concept for some people to understand, but it boils down to a feeling for the group and not just for themselves as individuals. It's not about who can see your posts, it's about the tenor of the group.

I think it's a reasonable thing to want to have a pleasant group with people who are respectful to each other.

"My employer disagrees with everything I say, think, feel, do, or plan to do."

He probably knows that the "tenor" of any group is only incidental to that which is real.

What might be important to him is your silly assumption that slogans and vogue thoughts manifest reality.

That is, of course, bullspit.

Truth is, obviously, independent of any vote.

What, you wanna be popular?

I thought I was the tenor in this group?

You were, etaoin, until you sold your soul to the soprano.

you do know me, milo...

(though I tend to prefer altos...)

"What might be important to him is your silly assumption that slogans and vogue thoughts manifest reality."

That might be important to him if it were true.

Some people demand respect, but refuse to give. They are eager to give offense and to take it. They cherish highly their presumed right to be obnoxious with impunity.

That is reality.

There are other people who like to get along. They do not waste others' time. They respect other people. They want to develop a community of pleasant conversation where people can learn, discuss and argue.

That is also reality.

Respect is not a vogue notion.

>Did you miss the under-current theme when you first saw "No time for Sargents"?

An art criticism course perhaps?

"Respect is exactly a vogue notion when it is bestowed by design."

Respect is not a vogue notion. I don't know how to state it any clearer than that. Respect for innocent bystanders, respect for those we do not know, respect for other people as individuals. People who do not act respectfully to others should not be surprised when they are treated disrespectfully.

"Respect happens, you don't give it, it just is. "

One can be respectful even if one doesn't feel respectful, if for no other reason, to maintain an atmosphere in which people would actually like to communicate.

One can always contrive reasons for being disrespectful. If one just "doesn't feel" respect, then one cannot be shocked when one is disliked.

I know a lot of smart people. Some of them take the view that respect and manners are utterly superfluous. These fellows are very eager to be critical of others - "I'm just being honest," the say. But any time they themselves are criticized, they take it deeply personally.

I do not get the point of your poem. I do not come to this board for status. I do not care what the people on this board think of me. If there are people on this board who enjoy each other's company outside the net, I'm happy for them and not envious - but for myself, I have plenty of things to keep me busy and I don't need any more. I enjoy reading the various fora on which I participate, but they are a very small part of my life and I would not feel threatened or left out if I am not everyone's favorite person. If the worst thing that happens to me in a day is that I get banned from a group, I would count it as a very good day.

In the very few years that I've participated on this forum, I have blasted one person outright - and that very recently. I regret wasting my time. I have refrained in the other cases for several reasons:

1. After 25 years on the net, I have at least a vague notion of the futility of it all. There is a lot I could be doing instead of arguing with someone.

2. I almost never understand how the blasted arguments get started - probably because I only read a very few threads. By the time I get wind of a disagreement, it sounds like he-said-she-said to me and my life is sufficiently full that I'm never inclined to spend time to investigate the circumstances.

3. I don't like the idea of 20 guys beating up on someone, even when that someone is obviously a horse's ass.

4. I don't want to be part of any clique or de facto governing body, even on fora I helped to create.

5. I don't need the drama.

OTOH, there are some people who love drama. They crave it. They create it ex nihilo. If they are not the centers of attention, they are constitutionally obliged to instigate it.

ex nihilo ...annihilate means nothing left...nil-->nothing...
If ex means from, then does ex nihilo mean from, or out of, nothing?

yes.

Fallible, the simple meaning of my little poem is that all dynamic social institutions eventually evolve into organizations crafted by effete insiders who prevent any further evolution of raison d'etre. Instead they direct the resourses of the organization towards the preservation and enhancement of themselves.

This, I'm sure you'll agree, is a universal.

And, I agree with your five points completely.

This, I'm sure you'll agree, is a universal.

Say, themilum? Whenever I see a formulation such as this I tend to disagree - takes me right back to HS debate days.

HTH.

i universal statements like themilum's while they might be generally true, are never universally true. but i didn't want to prolong an already too long dispute. do you want the end it or prolong it, snoot?

"Fallible, the simple meaning of my little poem is that all dynamic social institutions eventually evolve into organizations crafted by effete insiders who prevent any further evolution of raison d'etre. Instead they direct the resourses of the organization towards the preservation and enhancement of themselves."

Well, I don't disagree the gist, but I do disagree with the use of the term 'effete'. Also that's not the whole picture. Any individual will tend to encourage movement in a direction he thinks is desirable. Groups of individuals will - over time - affect each other's thinking. The way I think of it is that the thinking of individuals can have 'momentum' and that the thinking of groups can channel that 'momentum.'

Sometimes those desires, while contrary to the existing spirit of the forum, are based on an earnest disagreement. Sometimes the motives are selfish and destructive. Sometimes things might be called destructive simply because people don't like change.

In many cases, change really IS destructive. Left fallow, unmoderated fora tend to become dominated by strident, argumentative individuals. There are many, many fora of this type in existence - USENET, blogs, BBS systems, etc. Some fora - such as this one - have at least slight protection simply because they appear arcane to the average person.

To outsiders, the fact that there are already established - and usually undocumented procedures and relationships in a new group - can give the impression that there is a unified cabal in control of things. Sometimes there IS, as in the case of certain IRC channels. Other times, it's just appearance.

Any time I come to a new forum, it takes some time to get to know the parties involved. This is what happens - sometimes you mention something and nobody's interested, or they'll discuss it for 30 seconds and it wanes. It's not a cabal. It's not a plot. It's not even a collective decision. It's a hundred individuals separately deciding that they're not interested in pursuing the topic. So I pick a new one. But I notice sometimes a person will come into the group - be largely ignored and immediately assume that everyone is a snob just because they're not interested in his pursuing his conversation at length.

He seems completely oblivious to the fact some gracious group-members at least made an attempt to welcome him by engaging however shortly in conversation they pretty clearly did not find all that interesting.

True Story:
I take my kids' dog out to the dog park at least once or twice a week. I see a lot of different interactions. A common thing to happens is for two happy-go-lucky dogs to suddenly go at it, because one of them simply misunderstood what the other was doing. Our JRT is particularly bad at this: she sniffs other dogs' behinds, but nobody's allowed to sniff hers. "Hey, whatcha doin back there? Cut dat out, ya bastard!"

That's kinda what the Internet is like - at least a little - a dog park. (don't follow that analogy too far. it's not meant to be perfect.)

You're a good guy, Fa-fiend.

And I'm so glad you are not copying your dog, but seem to positively welcome Milo to kiss your ass...

[...] In the very few years that I've participated on this forum, I have blasted one person outright - and that very recently [...]

Who, me?

Bah. That wasn't a blasting.

See Fallible, when you carefully describe our World in such couched terms nobody will get your gist but empathants and sensitive types like Maverick.

If you take the trouble to blast a rogue like Homo Loquens it is germane to your blasting for him to know that he has been blasted.