Can we please accept that this is a fairly close-knit community and not something seeking massive amounts of press exposure a la old HJ, and wind down the setting on the swear filter?
I'm not suggesting that it be turned off entirely, but how about a change from "primary school" to "adult"?
t*****
b******s
a***
Damn
b*****
Poo
Crap
b*****
t***
Cock
a***
Imbecile
Bellend
b******
Cock
Cock-up
d*******
Feck
Knob
Pillock
P***ed
p***ed
Bint
Berk
Bitch
Cockwomble
Fudgecicles
s***
Focker
^^ experimental list of utterly minor swear words to find out what's banned by this forum. S-M-E-G is banned, for crying out loud.
|
Without my mods hat on...
While swearing doesn't particularly upset me (except when done gratuitously or persistently) - and in fact I even do it myself sometimes - I do think there is a nicer ambiance here than most of the other social media I look at,which I think is due to the fact that our posters have to consider what they are saying, which to some degree becomes self moderating.
So on those grounds I'd be inclined to keep it how it is, despite the frustrations it causes us all sometimes.
With my mods hat on - I moderate on other forums which have less restrictive filters and while most people have learned that swearing looks plain daft on a forum, new members often seem to feel the need, maybe to make an impression. So it increases my workload, as I have to read each post, as there is a good chance something unpleasant can bypass the filters.
Thanks for the heads-up on those items which get through the filter :-)
btw I'm not a policy wonk, I'm just an enforcer :-)
|
I always smile when it has a go at Scunthorpe.
Ah - it didn't do it this time!
Last edited by: Haywain on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 10:19
|
|
Yeah it is a little pious on here with regard to the swear filter. As to what new members on here do, that's not really something we need worry about too much.
|
I'm bemused it doesn't like the old quarter penny - farthing.
Edit. I see it does now.
Last edited by: bathtub tom on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 12:15
|
|
The First (and last) time I posted the "P" word for "do as they likeys" it got past the swear-filter but not the Mods ;-) - however, watching a certain Tv Prog about their lifestyle (currently showing) I was bemused to hear that they refer to themselves by that word! - shows that some folk see offense where there isn't any sometimes! ;-)
|
|
Bit like black rap artists referring to themselves as ni99ers but declaring racism if its used by anyone else to describe them.
|
>> Bit like black rap artists referring to themselves as ni99ers but declaring racism if its
>> used by anyone else to describe them.
I'm happy to among friends to be described as a tight fisted Yorkshire B...
In other hands term is offensive.
|
|
One of my neighbours is Chinese, owns the local Chinese carry out and often asks me if I'm calling in for a chinky on my way home.
|
|
I understood the "P" word for "do as they likeys" comes from them using turnpikes to travel on. So arguably no more offensive than referring to motorcyclists as bikers or lorry drivers as truckers (let's see if Pat's awake, I know she hates that term).
|
I do hate that term BT, but I am awake and sitting on my fingers.
If I post anything it seems to be completely misunderstood and I then have to explain what is to me, the obvious.
I accept it may well be me some of the time, but I think it's become a bit of a car4play game....
Never one to sit on my fingers for long though because life is too short so here goes!
I actually find the term Do as you Likeys more offensive than the term p****s.
Not all of the forum users are delicate southerners and for those of us who live North of Watford that is what they call themselves to us. It's what we use in everyday conversation to them.
Believe me, if they were offended, we would be told so.
P word and Likeys is just pandering to people who want to be offended....most of us aren't and would prefer it if people called a spade a spade.
p****, or traveller is perfectly acceptable up country and some of them are actually very nice people too.
I have the pleasure of calling some of them my good friends, just as I have the coloured people from all castes who I still visit in Leicester.
Don't call me racist, don't call me bigoted, just give me the benefit of the doubt and accept I see beyond their skin, beyond their background and look at what's underneath that.
Incidentally I know a few truly obnoxious white, middle class, with a mortgage and 2.4 children too, but then again I know others who I would be proud to call my friends.
Misunderstand that if you must!
Pat
|
Even the swear filter won't allow it....words fail me, but not for long.
How can you have an adult discussion about the use of a word when the swear filter won't allow it?
Moderated, regulated, ruled and sooner or later we'll all look/dress/think the same.
Pat
|
|
Seemed to work for the "Stepford" Wives tho' ;-)
|
Moderated, regulated, ruled and sooner or later we'll all look/dress/think the same.
Oddly I'm considering my first ever pair of "Trackies" this afternoon, so you must be right.
|
Don't do it Rob ! You're better than that, just get a grip man !
I know you've been living in Wales quite a while now but that is still no excuse !
Go and look in a mirror this instant and ask yourself "Am I really that man, have my standards really sunk that low?"
:-(
|
>> Don't do it Rob ! You're better than that, just get a grip man !
>>
>>
>> I know you've been living in Wales quite a while now but that is still
>> no excuse !
>>
>> Go and look in a mirror this instant and ask yourself "Am I really that
>> man, have my standards really sunk that low?"
>>
>> :-(
>>
...as he is living in Wales, shouldn't that have been....
"Am I really that man, have my standards really risen that much?"
|
>> Don't do it Rob ! You're better than that, just get a grip man !
>>
>>
>> I know you've been living in Wales quite a while now but that is still
>> no excuse !
>>
>> Go and look in a mirror this instant and ask yourself "Am I really that
>> man, have my standards really sunk that low?"
>>
>> :-(
>>
I reckon you only need to worry if you start eyeing the adverts in the back of the Daily Fail and start thinking, "ooh, beige AND an elasticated waist? How can I lose?!".
|
>>How can I lose?!
Yeah, I've sometimes wondered when that happens? I'm quite worried that I'm getting perilously close to an age when it might. Caught myself thinking I'd quite like to tuck my polo shirt in too the other day when it got a bit chilly. Fortunately I managed to resist, but it was scarily close...
By the way, I've noticed that astronauts on the space station tuck their polo shirts in. Is that a pilot thing or is it just astronauts and old guys?
;-)
|
"By the way, I've noticed that astronauts on the space station tuck their polo shirts in."
When I was an astronaut, I used to tuck my polo in otherwise, gravity-free, it would rise up and cover my eyes. This was very dangerous when trying to dock with the ISS.
Now that I'm retired, I still tuck my polo in - I guess a case of old habits die hard! If you see any old guys with their polos tucked in, you can assume that they are very probably retired astronauts.
|
Yes, men in polo shirts.
Please tell me no-one on here wears the collar of their polo shirt turned up?
It looks so naff and pretentious.
Some men have little dress sense!
Pat
|
Polo collar up?
Now y'see, that depends. If you are wearing a polo under your Barbour (or if really in the know, Musto or Aigle) jacket, then the collar must be turned up. Upon removal of the jacket, you must always turn the collar down. It's sort of the law, a bit like unbuttoning your jacket while seated but never failing to button it again on standing.
It's really hard to explain, you just have to know really.
:-)
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 16:23
|
> Now y'see, that depends. If you are wearing a polo under your Barbour
Really? I'm glad we're at the stage in society where you can admit that.
;-)
|
Most of the country has been there for quite some time. I know it's different where you are, so I'm not judging you understand...
;-))
|
>> Most of the country has been there for quite some time. I know it's different
>> where you are, so I'm not judging you understand...
>> ;-))
>>
Of course they are, you keep telling yourself that.
;)
|
>> Yes, men in polo shirts.
>> Please tell me no-one on here wears the collar of their polo shirt turned up?
Does that mean I should stop wearing white, polo necks?
|
Ah ! Got it Haywain !
:-)
Last edited by: Runfer D'Hills on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 16:14
|
|
It's all to do with membership of a Spa club down the road - (like 5 minutes away) - just more convenient ! I'm avoiding "leisure trousers"
|
It may only be 5 minutes away, but wearing such a garment in public for any reason other than its specifically intended purpose is simply not the behaviour of a civilised man. I'll hear no more about it.
:-(
|
|
Get your first hoody, its so liberating.
|
>> Get your first hoody, its so liberating.
Oh God...
:-(
|
Hoodies should never be worn by anyone over 40.....thought you posh lot would know that!
Pat
|
|
Is a duffle coat a hoody? I've always rather liked them in very cold weather.
|
|
No i don't think so, quite different items of clothing.
|
Even I don't wear trackies, I do wear skinny jeans though....you should try them Rob.
Pat
|
When I first heard the phrase 'Do as you likeys', it was said to have originated from within the police force.
The word 'queer' was, at one time, thought to be offensive to homosexuals, but now it has become OK - as in LGBTQ ......... I think; but I admit that I am a little confused by all these new sexes that have recently been discovered and about who is currently offended by what.
|
>> but I admit that I am a little confused by all these new sexes that have recently been discovered and about who is currently offended by what. <<
I'm not, I work on the theory that I'll say what I think and if that person (THAT being the important word) is offended by it, they will tell me face to face.
I will happily apologise and ask what term they would prefer.
If by any chance they are not offended enough to say so at the time, then they are not really offended at all.
Easy!
Pat
|
|
So some cultures have a notion of deference and respect, and would not necessarily mention that you have offended them.
|
>> So some cultures have a notion of deference and respect, and would not necessarily mention
>> that you have offended them.
>>
Just as I do when I'm mildly offended Smokie, I do like to try and not hurt or embarrass others........on the other hand, if I'm really offended nothing on this earth would stop me saying so.
Pat
|
>> So on those grounds I'd be inclined to keep it how it is,
Wot he says.
I swear like a trooper at work. I swear like a trooper among friends.
I don't however swear among strangers, nor in the presence of ladies, unless they themselves are swearing like troopers, but even then I am still aware of what I am saying and self moderate where necessary. I rarely swear amongst family either.
Some people are unable to contain themselves though. Hence the need for a swear filter here.
The filter might well be dumb and block the occasional innocent word, but as and when spotted, one of us will correct it. I've done my best to sort out some of the ones it mistakes for swearing.
p,s, I don't fancy spending my free time editing the filter because it doesn't suit you, nor I would imagine Stephen would want to rewrite the forum policies, T's & C's etc either.
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 15 Sep 17 at 16:59
|
I absolutely agree with you on that one VX but the swear filter contains so many words that are not swearing, they are just considered to be 'offensive' by the mods.
On the PDF the swear filter contains just 8 words, and we don't have any problems at all.
Pat
|
|
I accidentally bought a pair of trousers for work which were "Skinny"...erm...yes...and no...
|
Just no. I'm afraid. Under no circumstances.
Are you quite well?
|
|
It was accidental. I had decent shoes on.
|
Pat, do you remember writing earlier "...don't call me bigoted..."
And elsewhere in the same post "Not all of the forum users are delicate southerners...".
Shome mishtake shurely? :-)
On another point, you might want to consider that if someone is offended by something you say within the first few seconds of meeting them, however much you backtrack you can't unsay it and, despite the fact that you aren't a bigoted racist, they may well form an opinion that you are, and you might have trouble shaking that perception off.
Anyway, FWIW and before all of us mods get tarred with the same brush, I've no idea who manages the swear filter or even how to do it (though maybe I was asleep on that part of the induction course - coincidentally that chapter is missing from my manual too!!). I'm feeling a retraining opportunity arising!!
I imagine some words are in there "undeservedly" because some people found enjoyment trying to overcome the filter, not because the words themselves were found offensive. I'm sure we've been told that before.
|
Well said Smokie.
Pat does not care about what people think of her or what she says - she is "her own woman" and in her seventies I think (like a lot of the forum members). Comes from an age when people spoke their mind and be honest - which I think is a good thing and we (mostly) should still do. Too much political correctness.
But I am not advocating people say offensive statements.. I won't list examples!
|
I was replying to VX who had written this in response to me and not Fursty Ferret who initially made the complaint and started the thread ( what a surprise!)
>>p,s, I don't fancy spending my free time editing the filter because it doesn't suit you, nor I would imagine Stephen would want to rewrite the forum policies, T's & C's etc either. <<
Perhaps you two should talk to each other?
>>On another point, you might want to consider that if someone is offended by something you say within the first few seconds of meeting them, however much you backtrack you can't unsay it and, despite the fact that you aren't a bigoted racist, they may well form an opinion that you are, and you might have trouble shaking that perception off. <<
Rather patronising remark Smokie.
As rtj points out gleefully, I am in my 70's (71 actually just!) and so far I have never managed to offend anyone within the first few seconds.
I always wait and form an opinion of them first from the way they treat me....after that, it's open season.
If the cap fits...
Pat
|
rtj
You have completely missed the point as usual.
Explain to me why it's ok to have a thread title of 'Do as you Likeys' but not use the proper word, or any other word, which isn't swearing in it's place?
The forum swear filter, the Forum T&C's and even the Mods apparently allow that and think it's OK.
I don't, I find it offensive and derogatory and spanking of having double standards.
Why is it OK to allow something that offends me?
Two questions.......but both very indicative of what's wrong with the world and attitudes today.
Off to work now, so feel free!
Pat
|
>> You have completely missed the point as usual.
Pat, (just to be clear who I'm replying to)
It's difficult to debate with you because you have a habit (or is it a technique?) of shifting your point as soon as somebody replies in a way that challenges or criticises your statements.
You're doing it here, you did it in the Rees-Mogg thread and above all when we discussed the use of Paki and other racial epithets.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 16 Sep 17 at 09:44
|
> It's difficult to debate with you because you have a habit (or is it a
>> technique?) of shifting your point as soon as somebody replies in a way that challenges
>> or criticises your statements.
On the internet, who'd have thought it eh?
:)
|
Has anyone on an Internet forum ever replied to a post critical of their previous comments with anything along the lines of...
"You make a good point, well argued, and as a result, I have now changed my opinion in light of that"
:-)))
|
"You make a good point, well argued, and as a result, I have now changed my opinion in light of that"
Yes - I now will. I'm not buying trackies - thank you Humph. You made a good point etc.
|
Thank goodness for that. I can only assume that you must have been drinking, or under severe emotional stress of some kind. Or perhaps it was some sort of wager?
Well done, and thank you for reassuring us. We'll say no more about it. I think that's probably for the best don't you?
Jeez...
;-)
|
Pat,
I agree that there are double standards here. And if that other do as they like thread is allowed then why not the p word.
And I understand the mods are volunteers and give their time for free. But then sometimes threads are chopped when posts are over-quoted.... so someone finds the time to read all the posts. That I do find odd. They don't moderate much here (which was the intention from the start) but waste time snipping bits out of some replies.
|
>> They don't moderate much here (which was
>> the intention from the start) but waste time snipping bits out of some replies.
>>
....that's because they aren't perfect...........unlike the rest of us.
;-)
|
>> I was replying to VX who had written this in response to me
Pat, just because my reply followed yours it doesn't mean I was replying to your post. I was replying to Smokie. I even quoted part of his post to give a clue that I was replying to him.
If you had clicked on the arrow at the start of the subject header of my post, that would have also indicated who I was replying to.
I really don't see how you and a very small handful of others continually fail to grasp who is replying to who and how a thread is laid out.
With regard to why there are so many words in the filter, a small minority of individuals think it's really clever to deliberately mispell a swear word to evade the filter.
Remember this platform has been going for quite a number of years now, and when some sad individual tries to be clever, their invented word gets added, hence why it's a very long list. Maybe the lorry drivers on your forum aren't quite so inventive as the half wits here, or are just less childish ;)
Perhaps I should just ban anyone who deliberately tries evading it instead of adding their latest word ;) joking apart, that is exactly what happens on another forum I browse.
|
I really don't see how you and a very small handful of others continually fail
>> to grasp who is replying to who and how a thread is laid out.
Maybe people aren't on here that often compared to other forums, it's pretty unusual.
|
>> it's pretty unusual.
Or even Bespoke.
|
>> >> it's pretty unusual.
>>
>> Or even Bespoke.
>>
Nah stick with unusual, a better description.
|
Difficult to believe now, I know, but in its day the Forum software, including the software, were absolutely trail blazing.
Really advanced. and written from scratch of course.
|
|
I'm not much of a 'computery' person but I'd guess mid 90s looking at the forum. It looks very dated now.
|
|
Crumbs, not sure - I was doing a contract in Rio, so I guess that must have been around 2000. I started a contract in London in 2001/2 and it was before that. And I was on a contract in Columbia in 1998 so it was after that.
|
>> Crumbs, not sure - I was doing a contract in Rio, so I guess that
>> must have been around 2000. I started a contract in London in 2001/2 and it
>> was before that. And I was on a contract in Columbia in 1998 so it
>> was after that.
About October 2000, so website design about 1999
Last edited by: Zero on Sat 16 Sep 17 at 19:34
|
|
Pat, as you've previously pointed out I am a moderator and as such, this time at least, I will manage to "sit on my fingers", as you put it. Suffice to say it'd be wrong of you to assume that silence from me is acceptance of what you say.
|
I don't know!...Tis a funny old world, folk can hate Spiders, Dogs, Cats, Mice and Rats etc and nobody bats an eye, but say you hate an Asian, Black or whatever Person or type of People and you are instantly a Racist Criminal. It's similar to C.I.T.I.E.S, you cant bring in or release non-indigenous wild life to a Country without a license or checks, for fear of wiping out the natural residents, or introducing non-indigenous diseases, yet non - indigenous Humans can come and go, or settle and oust the natural Inhabitants. Why should Humans be allowed to become like Grey Squirrel's?
It's natural - some folk just don't like people, and they shouldn't be criminalised for it.
Last edited by: devonite on Sat 16 Sep 17 at 11:02
|
>> I don't know!...Tis a funny old world, folk can hate Spiders, Dogs, Cats, Mice and
>> Rats etc and nobody bats an eye, but say you hate an Asian, Black or
>> whatever Person or type of People and you are instantly a Racist Criminal.
Can I be first to scowlie that?
|
|
If it makes you feel better! ;-) but I don't see anything in that post that should offend anybody, it's all fact, it's just a true statement of the way things are!
|
>> started the thread ( what a surprise!
Eh? I only started it because I thought thw swear filter was on ultra-nanny setting, not because I particularly want to call other members offensive names.
|
>> Eh? I only started it because I thought thw swear filter was on ultra-nanny setting,
Granted, it's not an intelligent filter, but you must have said something to trigger it otherwise it wouldn't have zapped your post. And to totally zap the whole sentence, must have been in the more severe category of the filter.
Trouble is, it doesn't know the difference between arsenal, coarse, parse, or any other words that have arse in the spelling of it.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 16 Sep 17 at 17:16
|
>>And to totally zap the whole sentence, must have been in the more severe category of the filter.
That is not really the case.
OK the 'F' word causes a line to be substituted, but the 'c' word doesn't. the 'p' word meaning drunk or very angry on the other hand does cause a line to be dumped.
As I recall its because one time the swear filter was edited when the usual maintainer was absent and so some words were set up differently.
|
>> I don't know!...Tis a funny old world, folk can hate Spiders, Dogs, Cats, Mice and
>> Rats etc and nobody bats an eye, but say you hate an Asian, Black or
>> whatever Person or type of People and you are instantly a Racist Criminal. .........
Sorry biut if you hate people, your fellow human beings, because they are from another part of the world or ha e different colour skin you ARE a racist.
|
>> Sorry biut if you hate people, your fellow human beings, because they are from another
>> part of the world or ha e different colour skin you ARE a racist.
Furthermore it was white men expanding their empire who fulfilled the CITES/Grey Squirrel role. Cannot immediately think of a European country that's been taken over by dark skinned (or pale skinned) migrants.
Sure all countries have social change which is not welcomed by all, particularly the oldies. But that's just as much of an issue in countries like Poland and others in former Eastern Bloc who've had zero coloured immigration.
|
>> > [Fursty Ferret] started the thread ( what a surprise!)
Pat, I'd still like an explanation for this comment, please. It seems a slight irony that you endorse an arbitrary filter that blocks the bad language equivalent of "bum" or "poo", but are willing to engage in an passive-aggressive ad homenin attack on me simply for raising the issue.
|
FF, I don't think Pat was aiming at you at all. Her issue was to do with VX Fan and Smokie whom she perceived to be getting at her.
Its a big ambiguous but that's my interpretation.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 19 Sep 17 at 20:13
|
>>
>> Its a big ambiguous but that's my interpretation.
BIT ambiguous
|
Exactly that Bromp, thanks.
FF, if you see that as an attack on you I can only assume you must be super sensitive.
I made a simple statement that you started the thread, which is correct.
I added 'what a surprise' and can only assume this is what you are referring to.
A surprise in as much that it wasn't me who first mentioned the swear filter but as always, seem to have to take on the discussion when I post in support of the original post.
Now, for clarity on your remarks about what I support I will make it clear I support a swear filter containing swear words.
I do not support a swear filter that contains bans on minor every day words heard, seen and used every day by the media, nor terms that are considered not PC by the mods.
I consider we are all adults and my upbringing dictated that I have a modicum of common sense to choose what I say and when.
No doubt yours did too.
The fact still remains though, as I mentioned on a thread the other day, I make a simple remark, in support of your view actually, and in a few simple words, you get your knickers in a twist about it.
I ignored your request the first time simply because I couldn't believe you had taken umbrage at someone supporting your view, but they do say 'there's nowt as queer as folk'.
Misunderstood from March.
|
In an attempt to understand just what I did wrong, I re-read this thread after my post above.
I can see it clearly now.....FF obviously wears Polo shirts with the collar turned up.
Pat
|
>> I can see it clearly now.....FF obviously wears Polo shirts with the collar turned up.
Your original post came across as both sarcastic and passive-aggressive, and then instead of offering an explanation - or even an apology - you simply launched into another. You must appreciate that the written word (especially online) can come across very differently to speech, which a quick and simple apology could have fixed instantly.
Where do you draw the line between making personal insults and then blaming someone for being "thin-skinned" with no sense of humour, and re-reading something and considering how it could actually be fairly offensive. I can't even say that I'm p****d off thanks to the nursery school swear filter here.
And no, I don't wear polo shirts with the collar turned up... ;-)
|
>>Your original post came across as both sarcastic and passive-aggressive,<<
Well FF, it certainly wasn't meant as that and if you read it that way then I can only suggest you are over sensitive.
If you can't see I was posting in support of you then I absolutely give up trying to explain myself.
Perhaps you should re-read it and then you would see that you have completely misunderstood the written word............maybe an apology for your misunderstanding of it would have been appropriate?
Talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.
Pat
|
|
Didn't someone tell someone off the other day for keeping digging? :-)
|
I'm not digging Smokie I'm trying to understand just how that could be misunderstood....how about you explain if it's clear to you.
I genuinely want to know because I hate being accused, or seeing anyone else accused, unfairly of anything and I'll fight for the bitter end to get it straightened out for them.......that goes for me too.
Perhaps we could have a forum vote on it?
Pat
|
I can see from the lack of response that no-one is prepared to put their head above the parapet and explain (apart from Sooty, thanks Sooty).
In an effort to explain my stubbornness, I’m going to relate a situation I found myself in in the early 90’s.
This thread has reminded me so much of the feelings of being let down, and indignation I felt that day.
I worked for a firm with 13 lorries. I was the only female and was 45ish at the time.
Five of us older drivers got sent to Dover on the Monday morning with flat trailers to load 22 tons of handball Cyprus potatoes from the Eastern dock. The load had to be roped and sheeted after we had each put every bag on by hand.
We took them to Derek Lynch at Romney Marsh into his potato store where we handballed them off again. Monday evening we ran back to Dover ready to do it all again on Tuesday but because we were already at the docks we had to load 2 loads, that’s 44 tons and rope and sheet them twice.
This went on all week, one load one day and two loads the next and parked up at Dover one night and in Derek Lynch’s yard the next.
That's 7 x 22 ton loads in 5 days.
Needless to say we were all completely knackered and couldn’t understand why there was young, fit lads, in their 20’s out with a taut liner (curtain sider trailer) behind them carrying palletised loads.
It wasn’t fair, the hard manual work should be equalled out among all 13 drivers, we thought.
Anyway, we decided to all go and see the Boss when we got home on Friday evening and ask why it couldn’t be shared out fairly, but the four lads I was with decided that I should be the one to do the talking for some reason.
We parked in the yard and we all walked over to the office together. As I opened the door to go in I realised there was no-one behind me. They were all wandering back to their lorries to leave it to me to put my head in the noose.
I posed the question and was told that the young drivers couldn’t ‘do’ handball as they had never done it before and didn’t know how to rope and sheet.
Then my Boss added with a smile ‘But of course Pat, if you can’t manage it, we quite understand and you know where the gate is’
I learned a lesson that day, to always stick up for myself and never, ever to let myself be treated unfairly, and to step in if ever I felt anyone else was being treated that way.
I went back down to Dover the following Monday to prove I could handle it, but I was a different person to the one I was the week before.
I think some have a problem understanding that I spent 30 years working with men, doing the same work as them.
I expect to be treated, and expect to be able to respond on here, just as a man would.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 20 Sep 17 at 16:21
|
Its a bit quicker to type..
"Sorry X, I didn't mean that, I meant xxxx.
|
|
You think you've not had adequate explanation because you're a woman, is that correct?
|
>> I can see from the lack of response that no-one is prepared to put their
>> head above the parapet and explain (apart from Sooty, thanks Sooty).
>>
Pat, I replied at 11:13 today if only to try to help, so I know what it's like to feel indignant.
|
Thanks HC, I did see that and should have mentioned it.
I have explaines Mark until I'm blue in the face and an apology for something I certainly didn't do implies that I did do it.
FF tells me how easy it is for the written word to be misunderstood....yet completely misses the fact that he may have misunderstood my written word.
No I'm not saying it's a 'being female ' thing at all.
What I'm trying to explain is the forum in general expect my responses to come from a female point of view.
They can't, they won't and never will, that's what I tried to explain. Those days are long gone.
I respond to you all as I respond to the lads in the yard, on a level, with respect given to them and respect from them.
I take the banter and give it back in the same vein, they don't take offence, I don't have to explain myself, neither do I ask them why they said anything or take offence.
What I'm saying is this is who I am, love me or hate me, I'm too old in the tooth to change so if any of you get offended at the way I respond I just hope you'll remember this post and try and understand I probably didn't mean it that way anyway.
And no Mark, it may be easier to say a public I'm sorry that I don't mean, but at least with me when I do apologise I mean it from the bottom of my heart.
I don't do flouncing either but I do stubborn, and I do it well.
Pat
|
You wrote something which, rightly or wrongly, offended FF, a man not normally known for over-sensitivity.
Would a courteous explanation really have been that hard?
As for expecting your response to come from a female point of view, well I cannot speak for the "forum in general", but I don't.
Unless we're talking about sex, high heels or what gits men are, then I'm not sure that I even know what the "female point of view" is.
|
I've given a very reasonable explanation three times, I can do no more....and neither should I have to.
As for 'a female point of view' what I mean is that I think some feel affronted to be responded to the way I respond, where they wouldn't if it came from a male poster.
Not you by the way, you give as good as I give:)
Pat
|
If the situation were reversed and you had taken umbrage at something FF had said, if he had simply responded, "Sorry, that's not what I meant, what I meant was...." surely you'd have just taken that as the courteous explanation it was intended to be and moved on?
I don't understand why you have a problem with that approach.
|
Thinking about it further, I think I would always apologise if a meaning was taken that I hadn't intended. As the writer it must be more my fault than the reader, surely?
|
As for 'a female point of view' what I mean is that I think some
>> feel affronted to be responded to the way I respond, where they wouldn't if it
>> came from a male poster.
Is that what you think has happened in this case?
|
I certainly don't think FF would have responded like that had it have been a male poster, he would probably have made a jokey remark and let it lie.
I see it a lot where other forum members will pick the bones out of any single thing I post but let things go by that another member posts.
It gets tiresome at times.
Pat
|
>> I certainly don't think FF would have responded like that had it have been a male poster, he would probably have made a jokey remark and let it lie.
>>
>> I see it a lot where other forum members will pick the bones out of
>> any single thing I post but let things go by that another member posts.
>>
and there can be no other possible reason for that other than your sex?
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 20 Sep 17 at 19:08
|
>>Misunderstood from March
So with words 'Exactly that Bromp' we agree there was a misunderstanding. You were not on a passive aggressive tac with First Officer Ferret. For what possible reasons might you then put up post that gives him every reason to be offended??
I give up.
|
If that offends FF then he must have had a complete sense of humour bypass and as a Pilot, I very much doubt that.
He's used to banter, I'm sure.
Pat
|
>> I do not support a swear filter that contains bans on minor every day words
>> heard, seen and used every day by the media, nor terms that are considered not
>> PC by the mods.
Pat, how many times a day do you see our filter triggered by words other than genuine swear words?
I've just conducted a forum search for the past week using ** as the keyword for the search and found 16 posts. All except one contained swearwords. Most of those posts were from our resident potty mouth btw ;) If he were to reduce the amount of swearing, there would be next to any.
What the swear filter picks up is very minor in comparison to the amount of posts per week. 62 posts today so far. You do the maths.
>> I consider we are all adults and my upbringing dictated that I have
>> a modicum of common sense to choose what I say and when.
You may well have a modicum of common sense to choose what you say and when, some other people however don't.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 20 Sep 17 at 11:10
|
Likewise with ours VX, and when we reduced the 'every day media words' on ours some years ago we found they suddenly lost their attraction and people started acting like adults.
There are times however I feel, in a forum where it's impossible to bold or underline a word, there are occasions when it needed to be able to say 'I'm b***** annoyed' as opposed to saying 'I'm annoyed'
But again you're answering me instead of the original poster who complained about the swear filter.
Pat
Last edited by: Pat on Wed 20 Sep 17 at 11:14
|
>> There are times however I feel, in a forum where it's impossible to bold or
>> underline a word,
Impossible, really?
Bold
Underline
strikethrough
italics
You just need to put the appropriate tag before and after the word.
|
Yes, I know but not many of the posters on here will know those appropriate tags without looking them up.
I expected the more PC savvy posters to come up with that, but I didn't expect it to be you!
Pat
|
>> Yes, I know but not many of the posters on here will know those appropriate
>> tags without looking them up.
Hang on a minute, first you say it was impossible, and then you say you knew how to do it ;)
And I can assure you most people on here know of the relevant commands for bold, underline, etc.
What you've got to remember is that this is a bespoke platform and not one bought off a shelf somewhere. Those other forums have their own foibles too, so it's not exclusively limited to here.
Last edited by: VxFan on Wed 20 Sep 17 at 11:50
|
> And I can assure you most people on here know of the relevant commands for
>> bold, underline, etc.
Really? I'm not sure that's the case.
|
>> A surprise in as much that it wasn't me who first mentioned the swear filter
>> but as always, seem to have to take on the discussion when I post in
>> support of the original post.
That wasn't very clear from your post, that's it in a nub i think.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 20 Sep 17 at 11:38
|
>> FF, I don't think Pat was aiming at you at all. Her issue was to
>> do with VX Fan and Smokie whom she perceived to be getting at her.
>>
>> Its a big ambiguous but that's my interpretation.
>>
Would whoever gave that post, a straightforward attempt to resolve a misunderstanding, a scowlie care to explain why?
|
I'd love to know that too Bromp!
Up late or up early?
Pat
|
Up all hours since Monday morning. Sis and I sitting with Mum who's in a bad way. Fell a fortnight ago. Hip could be mended but being bedbound gave congestive heart failure the chance it was denied while she was (semi) mobile. In hospital but in side room.
She's had enough at 91 but life won't let go without a fight.
|
So sorry to hear that Bromp, and well done for sitting with her.
Pat
|
>> but are willing to engage in an passive-aggressive ad homenin attack on me simply
>> for raising the issue.
>>
Right, for the third time this morning I have gone back and read this thread from start to finish and being one who hates being misunderstood, I would like some direction please.
I absolutely cannot see any passive-aggressive ad homenin attack on Fursty Ferret.
If anyone can please show me where?
Pat
|
>
>> If anyone can please show me where?
>>
>> Pat
>>
I've only scanned the thread though I wonder if ...
" I was replying to VX who had written this in response to me and not Fursty Ferret who initially made the complaint and started the thread ( what a surprise!)"
... was misunderstood.
It's not entirely clear to me.
|
Pat, I don't usually weigh in on these things, and I admit not reading every in and out above, but just to be sure - you do understand that in any given sentence if you say someone's name followed by (what a surprise!), then that's pretty well always a negative thing about that person, right?
At least, that's how I've always understood it and used it.
|
|
Jist as well this gentle man isn't a poster on C4P: youtu.be/V98o9xMg6ew
|
>> Jist as well this gentle man isn't a poster on C4P: youtu.be/V98o9xMg6ew
>>
He's funny though what he says is a load of @#%$$##@**& as along with everyone else to the left of Nick Clegg he totally ignores the personal tax allowance which is up from £6475 in 09/10 to £11500 in 17/18 ....
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Wed 20 Sep 17 at 10:45
|
|
He is godverdomme right sorry about the swearing.
|
>> He's funny though what he says is a load of @#%$$##@**& as along with everyone
>> else to the left of Nick Clegg he totally ignores the personal tax allowance which
>> is up from £6475 in 09/10 to £11500 in 17/18 ....
I'd never heard of this 'ere Jonathan Pie geezer TBH - my left-leaning, Guardian-reading, almost a professor of psychology friend in Plymouth sent me the vid. Here's his reply to your compliments comments:
"Interesting that - I just did the figures for a £35K per year salary and the increase in tax allowance does add £1K per year, but when you calculate the 1% pat rise over the last 7 years as compared to UK inflation over the period public sector pay is way behind - some pundits say it's 14% - but then it's a fact that politicians have always played the statistics game, hence the guys rant at Mrs M. :))"
|
>>the period public sector pay is way behind>>
Way behind what?
|
The full phrase reads
"as compared to UK inflation over the period public sector pay is way behind"
|
>> The full phrase reads
>>
>> "as compared to UK inflation over the period public sector pay is way behind"
>>
OK, yes it does make sense as sentence, I thought the writer may have meant something like "... relative to private sector pay".
This is thread drift though when you look at the state of the public sector finances in 2010 with the economy in recession public spending had to be controlled, particularly if the borrowing deficit was going to be tackled, and remember reducing the deficit is not even reducing the borrowing, it's only a matter of reducing the amount that the borrowing is growing by. So there still needs to be a strong reign on public sector spending and there needs to be a strong focus on stimulating the economy because it is the economy that pays for all government expenditure, infrastructure, wage bills etc, except for that that is paid out of borrowing, and we need to reduce the borrowing so as to not leave our kids with the debt. All that being said public sector workers need to be recognised an rewarded and current pay levels in most professions are competitive and benefits such as holidays and pensions are far better than generally available in the private sector.
Last edited by: Hard Cheese on Wed 20 Sep 17 at 15:26
|
|
There was no need to single out public sector pay, because all pay is behind the inflation curve, but public sectors have not had their pensions sold off or slashed to ribbons.
|
>> but public sectors have not had their pensions sold off or slashed to ribbons.
True to an extent, but my pension is significantly crappier from April 2015 onwards, with notional retirement age increased from 60 to 68.
I can still take the benefits accrued to April 2015 at age 60.
The %age of my income that goes back to the exchequer to pay for my pension (well it goes back into the pot as you know) has also increased quite significantly since 2009.
GPs have had a career average type pension since the beginning unlike salaried workers on final salary schemes.
Despite that, I expect my pension entitlement should be more secure than a private scheme as it is HMG that pays it.
|
Don't many GPs now work part time, as they can earn enough in 3 or 4 days to struggle by? That's how it seems at my local health centre but I'm sure I'm wrong.
|
>>Don't many GPs now work part time...
Many GPs (probably even most) no longer work 5 days - there's too much crap to be done on top of seeing patients to make it enjoyable, or in any way sustainable to age 68.
I work 4 days (Tues-Fri) but have other roles which make up another day or so worth of work and income.
>>... as they can earn enough in 3 or 4 days to struggle by?
Still not as much as working 5 days.
|
>> He's funny though what he says is a load of @#%$$##@**& as along with everyone
>> else to the left of Nick Clegg he totally ignores the personal tax allowance which
>> is up from £6475 in 09/10 to £11500 in 17/18 ....
I'm surprised you've fallen for that line HC, surely you can see the holes. First of all of course wage rises have always been demanded, negotiated, settled and recorded for stats as percentage of old rate. Tax was imposed by the Exchequer in accordance with political and social objectives. The rise in personal allowance under the coalition was a Lib Dem policy so its a bit cheeky for Tories to claim credit. The objective was to allow people to keep more of their earnings. Its benefit, in reality, accrued mostly to middle earners and not those who very low earners who already paid little or no tax. The biggest winners were those with two incomes.
The truly low paid got little but were bitten by NI changes, restrictions to Housing Benefit and Council Tax Relief. Only revolt in Commons saved further loss through changes to Working Tax Credit. These were a actually only postponed; they're now one of the cuts to come via Universal Credit.
|
>>The biggest winners were those with two incomes.
Yes a nice tax cut to middle England. Married / cohabiting couples should be taxed as one.
|
>> Yes a nice tax cut to middle England. Married / cohabiting couples should be taxed
>> as one.
>>
Why?
Why should one person pay more tax on the same income just because they live as a couple?
That's discrimination.
|
>>Why should one person pay more tax on the same income just because they live as a couple? That's discrimination
"They" started it ;-)
www.gov.uk/marriage-allowance
|
|
I've not fallen for anything Bromp. The Tories are committed to continue to increase the allowance though I made no mention of who instigated it. Those who have benefitted most are clearly the lower earners, someone who has earned £10k for seven years is now around 20% better off in take home pay terms simply due to the allowance changes.
|
How do you get 20%?
Ten grand keeps the arithmetic easy. The change is that our low earner no longer pays basic rate tax on (say) the last £4k 20% of 4k is £800, so change is gain of 8%. Other changes to NI etc are ignored for simplicity.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 20 Sep 17 at 22:03
|
Those who gain least are those whose earning no more than £6k who get zilch. Our £10k example gets something but has £2k unused allowance.
A couple each earning say £30k both save tax on £6k. 12k @ 20% = £2400.
Reforming National Insurance for low earners would be biggest help for those in lowest income decile.
|
Reforming National Insurance for low earners Increasing the minimum wage further would be biggest help for those in lowest income decile
|
The swear filter here... - smokie
