Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 27, 2006, at 21:34:35
In reply to alternative spellings? » deirdrehbrt, posted by pseudoname on February 26, 2006, at 17:11:36
I'll give it another shot. I will use euphemisms instead of names as a reminder that if one name should be banned, so should all.
As far as alternative spellings of one of my deities, I submit that if this were required, and as the name of the lord of the predominant faith group in the United States is oft used in a vulgar manner, much like one of my Goddesses, would it not seem fair to require either both or neither to use some sort of alternative spelling?
It's quite obvious that when one uses the name of the "Popular" God in a vulgar manner, they are pbc'd or blocked as the case may be. That is as it should be. When, however, that name is used in well-meaning conversation, no such action is taken. Simply, there is a vulgar, and an appropriate use of the name, and each is treated as it should be.
On the other hand, a "less popular" Goddess, having a name that may be the original source of a vulgar word, or may simply be a homograph of the same, is not permitted to be spoken of by what is rightly her name.
Certainly there are a few different spellings, but as you point out, they may have troubling connotations on this board as well. In any case, the name that I used is a quite propper name, and does have a non-vulgar meaning. That it's not found in some dictionaries should not be of consequence. There are many words and many lands and many dictionaries.
Simply, my perspective is that if a word is used in a vulgar manner, it should be treated as such, whether that be the name of the "popular" god, or of my deities. But when these names are used in truly civil manners, they ought to be permitted.
At the very least, if one deity is banned from the board, what justice is there in allowing others? I repeat... both have vulgar and both have civil uses. The only difference is in the "popularity" of the more commonly heard-of God. I'm also certain that I hear the name of the "popular" god used in a vulgar manner at least as often as I do my Goddess. To me, it makes no sense to ban the one and not the other, or to allow the one, and not the other.
The fact that my faith is polytheistic does in no way diminish my reverence to any single deity. Being required to use another name for her is every bit like telling a member of the "popular" faith that they need to use some other name for their god in this forum. In the old testament, there are a number of names for that deity. Should not one of those suffice as well? Of course not! There is a name, and it is fit and proper and beloved.
The name of my Goddess is a NAME. It is a word. It has a different meaning than the vulgar use of the WORD. They are, indeed, especially now, TWO SEPARATE WORDS that have TWO SEPARATE MEANINGS. They merely have the same spelling and sound. Much as do other english words. Take the word ball. It can mean a spherical toy. It can mean having a good time. It also has a vulgar meaning. I'm certain that if the vulgar meaning were used in a conversation, it would be pbc'd. That doesn't mean that we fail to permit it's use in a better fashion.
I am tempted to raise the stakes (still in a civil fashion). For now though, I beg of the owner of this board to reconsider his position. If you allow a God whose name can be used in a vulgar or civil manner, please allow a Goddess who suffers the same injustice the same courtesy. Doing so would go far in bringing me assurance that this is a board which supports religous tolerance.
Thank you for reading this, and I look forward to your reply.
Sincerely,
a humble servant of an unnamed deity.
poster:deirdrehbrt
thread:613415
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20060225/msgs/614059.html