![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 19 of 19. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 26, 2006, at 10:04:47
I'm sorry, but knowing that the name of this Goddess has been maligned does not make it less of a name. How the **** am I supposed to talk of her without using her name?
So, for me, if the name BOB becomes vulgar, can I just tell you, and have it automatically splatted? Will people get a PBC for using it?
Do you honestly think so little of the people here as to believe that they cannot tell the difference between when someone is being crude and when they are offering a blessing? Can you not tell the difference yourself? If you can, shouldn't the rest of the readers also be able to? I kind of figure that most people here are able to read at least 6th grade english, and the post I got PBC'd for is certainly within the reading abilities of all here.
A heartfelt blessing was offered and by the god of the board rebuked. It was much more than civil, but treated as trash. I hope that you also issues PBC's when someone offers blessings in the name of Jesus Christ, as that name also is treated as profane. And when speaks of Hell as a possible place in teh afterlife.
If a word has multiple meanings and the meaning is clear in context, what possible purpose may be served by the issuance of a PBC? It offers no-one the opportunity to learn the true meaning of the word, especially in a name.
I'm done with kindergarten. You all be nice to each other. Don't use naughty words. Don't use words that an uneducated few might think are naughty. play nice, make up. Don't talk about things that others might disagree with or misunderstand.I'm done here. May an unnamed generic non-gender specific unoffensive deity watch over those who are unable to tell the difference between a blessing and a curse.
Good-bye
--Dee
Posted by verne on February 26, 2006, at 11:05:00
In reply to A proper name of Deity earns a PBC, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 26, 2006, at 10:04:47
I didn't know **** was uncivil. (Sorry about all the asterisks, but I didn't want to offend anyone)
Now, even my euphemisms are obscene.
We really need a list of unacceptable words.
Verne
Posted by pseudoname on February 26, 2006, at 17:11:36
In reply to A proper name of Deity earns a PBC, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 26, 2006, at 10:04:47
Deirdre,
I'm very sorry you were PBC'd for the well-intentioned use of a homograph of an obscenity. Since you capitalized only the first letter and were clearly NON-IRONICALLY referring to a deity, your use seems as civil as the use of other holy names that are also swear-words (JC, JMJ, HMoG, etc). I think Bob's amazing commitment to civility enforcement is what makes Babble work, but I think this one was a misstep.
I'm guessing he was unfamiliar with this name? I was. However, from past observations in these conflicts, we may assume he's not likely to relent on this point.
If that proves to be the case and although it is unfair to single out this deity for alternative spellings, there seem to be a few other spellings (unfortunately regional and nonstandard) that are within the rules.
The completely safe alternatives I see are:
Frea, Freo, Frija.But it would be great if Bob could rule on the following alternatives that do include the obscene string but are still NOT HOMOGRAPHS. The question to Bob is, If they use the "i" would they be obscene? (They don't trigger the asterisk, but I put it in just to be safe.)
Fr*ga, Fr*ge, Fr*gg, Fr*gga, and Fr*cka.I think most Babblers would agree it's not the best solution, but it would allow discussion of that deity even under current rules. *Please* don't leave Babble over this. (Source: http://www.thorshof.org/goddesses.htm)
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.
Posted by Dr. Bob on February 28, 2006, at 2:31:43
In reply to A proper name of Deity earns a PBC, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 26, 2006, at 10:04:47
> The name of my Goddess is a NAME. It is a word. It has a different meaning than the vulgar use of the WORD.
Yes, the name is different than the word. But the PBC was for what you yourself called "the word":
> I just saw how the word f r [*] g was splatted.
You're free to use Fr*g. It will, however, be automatically asterisked (if you keep that turned on). Or you can turn it off, but then be careful not to use the word again. Even in a blessing. Or you could settle for Frigg?
Bob
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 28, 2006, at 2:46:56
In reply to A proper name of Deity earns a PBC, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 26, 2006, at 10:04:47
Ok. I was riled. As you can probably tell from the exceedingly long posts, and the hours at which I'm posting, the manic side is shining through.
Anyway, the double-g form of She who still remains unnamed would be acceptable to me to use if it meets with your approval. That particular version is listed in the unabridged Edition of The Random House Dictionary of the English Language. The definition given is, in part: "the wife of Odin and goddess of the clouds, the sky, and conjugal love". It does not appear in the on-line edition of the Merriam-Webster dictionary.
Other variations of her name, such as Fri, or Frija just do not do the old blessing justice, as it sounds off.
I still find it unsavory to have to negotiate to use the name of deity, but I am willing to take this step in the name of civility on your board. It provides you with the opportunity to not have to retreat from your stance while providing me with the opportunity to use the name of the Goddess. The word is not splatted when used, and I think that when I use it in context, as well as ending in gg instead of g, it will be quite well understood to not mean the same thing as the vulgar word to which you object.
If you can accept this, I would take it as a generous sign on your part. I'm not trying to cause trouble on your board. I'm just trying to have honest and open discussions with good people. It seems I just keep stepping in the (euphemism deleted).
Thanks for listening,
--Dee
Posted by deirdrehbrt on February 28, 2006, at 3:58:18
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC, posted by Dr. Bob on February 28, 2006, at 2:31:43
Dr. Bob. It seems we crossed paths. Still, I wish to respond to what you wrote.
I said that f r * g is a word. True. A word is a group of letters which in the english language represent a sound that conveys meaning. This word happens to be a name. It was not used in context in a vulgar manner. Nor do I believe that any rational person could have been offended by that word in the context in which it was used. When my discussion mentioned that the word had been vulgarized, I was still discussing it in the context of the name. Clipping a sentence from a post removes it from the context rendering it devoid of meaning at best, and changing it's meaning at worst. Certainly
> I just saw how the word f r [*] g was splatted.could be interpreted as someone who just wanted to use the word f r [*] g. Especially when taken out of context as you have done. To anybody reading the post though, such could not have been the case. My meanings were eminently clear.
As mentioned in my previous post, and in yours to which I am responding, it seems that we are in agreement of a solution.
That being said, I will say that I still find it unfair that one while a Goddess' name is banned for being vulgar, that a particular God isn't. This is not to mean that I wish either to be banned. I just feel it to be a sort of double-standard. True, the meaning is somewhat different, but that God's name is used in just as vulgar a context, at least as often. Sometimes in the same sentence. It truly seems to me that because of the perceived novelty of this Goddess showing up on the board, that she isn't taken as seriously. I do hope that you know that I take my faith as seriously as any Christian here. And as important as is the name of Jesus Christ, for whom I also have deep respect, to Christians, so are the names of the Goddesses and Gods of my faith.
I do stand by the civility of the post which started this. I believe that I offended no-one, and hope that you will not be offended if I do not apologize for said post. I have already offered ammends for my behavior afterward, and stand by that also. I feel that my response to your pbc was much less civil than the original post. It was done though without objectionable words or names.
I'm not looking for a revocation of a pbc here. I'm just making the case, and which I believe to be a valid one, that no uncivil communication took place.
I will take you up on your offer to use the name Frigg should I offer that particular blessing again.
I hope that you can understand my position, my being upset at my post being disected to the point where meaning was lost and altered, and that you will accept my ammends for what I believe to be unreasonable behavior afterward.
I would also like you to know that while coming to compromise I am still not completely satisfied with the solution. I feel that the name of a Goddess is being unduly maligned.
Still, the conversations that have been started are, I hope, having the effect for which I am seeking. It is providing on a very small scale at present, interfaith communication, and demonstrating that while there are different beliefs, that Pagans and Christians are able to live side by side and not be afraid of each other. Even better, we are able to like each other. That communication and demonstration are in the end, worth more than gold.
Too often, Pagans are resentful of Christians, distrusting them and believing them wanting to destroy thier faith. Too, many Christians believe Pagans to be decieved by the devil, base and vulgar people given only to sinful natures, incapable of true goodness.
The discussion that we are having is even now beginning to dispel these myths on both sides. Real, honest, and heartfelt communications between a Christian and a Pagan are taking place. No-one is being offended. This, to me, is the ideal which your board aspires to. It is a valuable thing, and I hope you permit it to continue.
I think that the "Please rephrase that" comments aren't really necessary. We understand each other, and so does the other gentleman( I believe) who has made some comments. I think that most readers who might frequent that board will also.
Of course, with any religious discussion, there may be potential for it to get out of hand. I suppose that's what you are trying to avoid. I recognize that this is your board. Still, I hope you'll let what's happening here continue. I hope that you see it as something of worth.So, realizing that my mania continues, as it's nearly 5:00 AM, I'll end this.
For Brigid,
--Dee
Posted by fallsfall on February 28, 2006, at 8:42:16
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 28, 2006, at 3:58:18
Take care of yourself, Dee. We love you.
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 28, 2006, at 21:45:55
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 28, 2006, at 3:58:18
Of course you have every right to apologize for your rant. But I personally didn't see the need to.
I read the thread on faith, after I saw your post. And to me it's such a perverse interpretation of civility, never mind fact that another word associated with Paganism is now beyond redemption when the most basic "common" sense would dictate otherwise.
I cannot fathom the reaction if a Christian were asked to pick a nickname for Jesus, because the real word upsets others.
Anyway, it doesn't really infuriate me here anymore, because I've just become rather numb to some things.
But the attitude itself, what it represents makes my blood boil.
Posted by zenhussy on February 28, 2006, at 22:03:17
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC » deirdrehbrt, posted by Gabbix2 on February 28, 2006, at 21:45:55
Posted by Gabbix2 on February 28, 2006, at 23:11:29
In reply to offers ice pack to cool boiling blood (nm) » Gabbix2, posted by zenhussy on February 28, 2006, at 22:03:17
Thank you Zen!
It was much needed. well I think seeing your name was what really helped.
Posted by sleepygirl on February 28, 2006, at 23:20:54
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC » deirdrehbrt, posted by Gabbix2 on February 28, 2006, at 21:45:55
Posted by Dr. Bob on March 1, 2006, at 1:40:02
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC, posted by deirdrehbrt on February 28, 2006, at 3:58:18
> Anyway, the double-g form of She who still remains unnamed would be acceptable to me to use if it meets with your approval.
> I still find it unsavory to have to negotiate to use the name of deity, but I am willing to take this step in the name of civility on your board. It provides you with the opportunity to not have to retreat from your stance while providing me with the opportunity to use the name of the Goddess. The word is not splatted when used, and I think that when I use it in context, as well as ending in gg instead of g, it will be quite well understood to not mean the same thing as the vulgar word to which you object.
> If you can accept this, I would take it as a generous sign on your part.I'm happy to accept that, it's a generous sign and a compromise on your part. Thanks.
> That being said, I will say that I still find it unfair that one while a Goddess' name is banned for being vulgar, that a particular God isn't.
I agree, it isn't fair. But if people are sensitive to certain words, I'd like to respect that, too.
> I hope that you can understand my position, my being upset at my post being disected to the point where meaning was lost and altered, and that you will accept my ammends for what I believe to be unreasonable behavior afterward.
I understand your position, I'm glad you stood up for it, and I thought you did so in a civil way.
> the conversations that have been started are, I hope, having the effect for which I am seeking. It is providing on a very small scale at present, interfaith communication, and demonstrating that while there are different beliefs, that Pagans and Christians are able to live side by side and not be afraid of each other. Even better, we are able to like each other. That communication and demonstration are in the end, worth more than gold.
Well said! That's why there's one Faith board. You've posted about being able to bridge one divide, this is another...
Bob
Posted by gardenergirl on March 1, 2006, at 9:14:15
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC » deirdrehbrt, posted by Gabbix2 on February 28, 2006, at 21:45:55
> > I cannot fathom the reaction if a Christian were asked to pick a nickname for Jesus, because the real word upsets others.
I just pronounce it differently to avoid triggering anyone.
;)
gg
PS: I think Miriam Webster has some pretty extreme standards (she says while f*rting).
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 1, 2006, at 14:02:37
In reply to good point (nm) » Gabbix2, posted by sleepygirl on February 28, 2006, at 23:20:54
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 1, 2006, at 14:08:15
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC » Gabbix2, posted by gardenergirl on March 1, 2006, at 9:14:15
> I just pronounce it differently to avoid trig*ering anyone.
>
> ;)
>
> g*Careful
It's the extra G that does them in.
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 1, 2006, at 14:14:50
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC-gardner-irl, posted by Gabbix2 on March 1, 2006, at 14:08:15
I am innately uncivil, I didn't even have that right.
It's the single G..
It confused me cause I have these plastic containers called Fri*-O-Seal.I have blasphemous plastic in my cupboard.
who knew?
That sounds like a band..The blasphemous plastics.
Sorry
I sound like I'm making fun of all this and I'm not.
Some things just seem absurd to me.
I think what you did was cool Dr. Bob.
Posted by Larry Hoover on March 1, 2006, at 14:51:36
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC-gardner-irl, posted by Gabbix2 on March 1, 2006, at 14:14:50
> who knew?
> That sounds like a band..
>
> The blasphemous plastics.<grinnage>
Hey, let's form a band. Blasphemous Plastics is too good to waste.
Lar
Posted by Gabbix2 on March 1, 2006, at 15:41:39
In reply to Re: A word earns a PBC-gardner-irl » Gabbix2, posted by Larry Hoover on March 1, 2006, at 14:51:36
too good to waste..that was pretty good for you Lar.
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.