[finally17]

Jlall, on Apr 2 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

I still think you're funny han <3. Some people here just take these things too seriously, I wonder how they're able to function in the real world.

I realize that I'm playing right into your point, but I consider your short-sightedness important enough to point out; your point is rather worthless.

You should consider that perhaps the issue is that people are free to take seriously things here that in the real world they wish they could take seriously, but from which they are prohibited due to the negative repercussions they would face.

I imagine many a woman in the workplace wishes they could remark on their co-workers comments regarding "growing some balls" or other statements like those, but they would be regarded as childishly as you are regarding this. In the workplace, they can not afford that disregard. Here, the regard of fellow posters on a web-forum is basically meaningless, so they can.

I don't think the joke was all that big a deal, mostly because I don't believe Han meant anything malicious by it. But I do think it's a big deal that people express valid concerns and they are written off as though they are nothing.

If there is a problem, it lies with this attitude you're expressing.

[pclayton]

My last word:

I never want to impose my standards on anyone, but personally I respect it when someone behaves nicely and doesn't let themselves to be dragged into an argument or feels the need to use a lot of inappropriate language. "that took balls" doesn't offend me either. I'm really not that backward.

Lets just not make this into another RGB where you have a bunch of mostly wannabe bridge players (mostly morons IMO) continually starting flame wars.

[han]

finally17, on Apr 2 2008, 07:54 PM, said:

Jlall, on Apr 2 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

I still think you're funny han <3. Some people here just take these things too seriously, I wonder how they're able to function in the real world.

I realize that I'm playing right into your point, but I consider your short-sightedness important enough to point out; your point is rather worthless.

You should consider that perhaps the issue is that people are free to take seriously things here that in the real world they wish they could take seriously, but from which they are prohibited due to the negative repercussions they would face.

I imagine many a woman in the workplace wishes they could remark on their co-workers comments regarding "growing some balls" or other statements like those, but they would be regarded as childishly as you are regarding this. In the workplace, they can not afford that disregard. Here, the regard of fellow posters on a web-forum is basically meaningless, so they can.

I don't think the joke was all that big a deal, mostly because I don't believe Han meant anything malicious by it. But I do think it's a big deal that people express valid concerns and they are written off as though they are nothing.

If there is a problem, it lies with this attitude you're expressing.

They are written of as nothing because they are nothing. My joke "grab the bull by the balls" was not a sexist joke. It was also not to rile someone. It was a bridge post that I tried to make humorous by referring to the fact that the title was changed. Your analogy with a woman in the workplace is therefore completely off.

You rarely post about bridge yet you come to this forum to tell serious contributors how they should behave. I don't appreciate that.

[finally17]

Han, you can appreciate it as little or as much as you want. Whether or not I feel up to adding my thoughts on bridge threads I read, or just voting in the polls, or doing nothing but reading, has no bearing on this particular discussion. I don't mind admitting that I don't generally feel qualified to actively participate much in that type of discussion, but frankly that's none of your damned business.

And it most certainly doesn't disqualify me here. There is sadly an attitude exhibited by many on these forums that being a bridge expert makes you an expert on anything that gets discussed here. People are deferred to when they shouldn't be because of bridge success. But this isn't a discussion about a hand or an auction. I will consider you my superior on bridge or mathematics, Han, but on anything else you'll have to prove yourself first, and the same goes for anyone here.

So you won't run me out of this discussion that easily. And I won't defer to Jlall's "it's no big deal" posts just because it's jlall. If I think he's wrong and that it's important enough to say so point-blankly, I will. Until there's a post quota in the Bridge Discussion section before I'm allowed to post in the Water Cooler, your opinion on that issue is meaningless.

If you had simply wanted to make light of an editing, you could have chosen anything to edit out. The fact is you went for a topic that you had been told bothered some people. So while it might have the effect that you want, it also has the effect I already pointed out:

Namely, to repeat myself, it's a tacit acknowledgment that there are some that will find it offensive, while simultaneously proving that you don't care enough not to use it. You are taking advantage of your knowledge that someone was bothered to provide humor for others.

I don't appreciate that.

[Codo]

han, on Apr 3 2008, 02:30 PM, said:

You rarely post about bridge yet you come to this forum to tell serious contributors how they should behave. I don't appreciate that.

This is no funny remark and no true remark.

It is no matter of bridge skills whether you are a good contributor to the Water Cooler or not.
You may discuss whether this is necessary as a contributor to the bridge part of this forum, even there it is questionable.

And it is surely not your (or mine) task to judge about the contributors here.

[the hog]

Roland, I have not posted anything on this thread because for me it is a non issue. However, without wanting to put words in anyone's mouth: I think what Han was getting at here was that IF you posted a lot on the bridge threads, THEN you would be aware that he does have a quirky sense of humour, and certainly didn't not intend any insult or offence to anyone.

With all due respect, Finally17's comments do come across as somewhat high handed and supercillious. perhaps he(she) doesn't mean them that way - probably not - but that is the impression they leave. Really, to make an analogy with a female colleague in the workplace is drawing a very long bow indeed.

[luke warm]

The_Hog, on Apr 3 2008, 02:47 AM, said:

Roland, I have not posted anything on this thread because for me it is a non issue. However, without wanting to put words in anyone's mouth: I think what Han was getting at here was that IF you posted a lot on the bridge threads, THEN you would be aware that he does have a quirky sense of humour, and certainly didn't not intend any insult or offence to anyone.

With all due respect, Finally17's comments do come across as somewhat high handed and supercillious. perhaps he(she) doesn't mean them that way - probably not - but that is the impression they leave. Really, to make an analogy with a female colleague in the workplace is drawing a very long bow indeed.

what he said

[Walddk]

Give me a break. Denmark was the first country to legalise pornography, in 1967 on print and 2 years later re pictures. More than 40 years later some people seem to have a problem and take offence if they see words like "balls", "tits", "boobs", etc. on print.

I can think of words much more "rude" than these and would still not be offended. I acknowledge the fact that different countries have different standards and that there has to be a limit, even in the Water Cooler. Good luck to the moderators when they try to determine where that limit is.

Roland

[kenberg]

What I have learned about functioning in the real world, as it is currently designed, is that you have to be very very careful about what you say. Ask Larry Summers, for example.

It is perfectly acceptable to say *****, *****, and balls, only someone hopelessly out of date would object, but God help you if you express an opinion that does not conform to accepted dogma.

I find the modern tolerant world to be far less tolerant of diverse opinion than it was fifty years ago.

[pclayton]

finally17, on Apr 2 2008, 09:51 PM, said:

Han, you can appreciate it as little or as much as you want. Whether or not I feel up to adding my thoughts on bridge threads I read, or just voting in the polls, or doing nothing but reading, has no bearing on this particular discussion. I don't mind admitting that I don't generally feel qualified to actively participate much in that type of discussion, but frankly that's none of your damned business.

And it most certainly doesn't disqualify me here. There is sadly an attitude exhibited by many on these forums that being a bridge expert makes you an expert on anything that gets discussed here. People are deferred to when they shouldn't be because of bridge success. But this isn't a discussion about a hand or an auction. I will consider you my superior on bridge or mathematics, Han, but on anything else you'll have to prove yourself first, and the same goes for anyone here.

So you won't run me out of this discussion that easily. And I won't defer to Jlall's "it's no big deal" posts just because it's jlall. If I think he's wrong and that it's important enough to say so point-blankly, I will. Until there's a post quota in the Bridge Discussion section before I'm allowed to post in the Water Cooler, your opinion on that issue is meaningless.

If you had simply wanted to make light of an editing, you could have chosen anything to edit out. The fact is you went for a topic that you had been told bothered some people. So while it might have the effect that you want, it also has the effect I already pointed out:

Namely, to repeat myself, it's a tacit acknowledgment that there are some that will find it offensive, while simultaneously proving that you don't care enough not to use it. You are taking advantage of your knowledge that someone was bothered to provide humor for others.

I don't appreciate that.

JonOtttaaaaaawwwwwwaaaaaaaaa...........

[Trumpace]

I didn't want to say anything in this thread... but.. why you guys are treating finally17 this way?

Just because he/she has not made many bridge related posts, it does not mean he/she hasn't _read_ them. I see finally17 has 273 posts and has been around since November 2006. I think that is good enough to talk about standards of behaviour in the forums.

FWIW, when I read the comment about the bull by the horns/balls, it came across (to me) as an intent to taunt the people who were offended earlier and not as an attempt at humour.

Asking how others fuction in real life (Jlall's comment) seems to be akin to some people calling others "whiny babies" for not being able to carry a cell phone. You expect people to understand why you need the cell phones but are having a tough time understanding why people can be offended by words like "grow some balls"?

You might call this a "long bow"/whatever, but I don't care. I don't intend to participate anymore in this thread... so jump on me all you please.

As for the question asked by Uday, personally, I don't care what language is used. I believe I am immune. If someone keeps offending others repeatedly (and taking offence is justified in some cases) maybe just ban that person temporarily etc...

[jillybean]

Jlall, on Apr 3 2008, 04:11 AM, said:

Two important links:

This and...
This...

Surreptitious personal attacks, (edit: used under the guise of humor) are ok, what else can these possibly be?

[jdonn]

Wow some people have NO sense of humor.

[awm]

I have a fairly large number of bridge related posts and generally try to avoid posting in the water cooler. Nonetheless, since I mostly agree with finally17 and people are attacking him based on his lack of bridge posts, I feel compelled to reply.

For the most part (watercooler excluded) this is a forum for the discussion of bridge. Obviously some people are posting a lot of threads, and there are only so many ways you can post "what's your bid?" or "how do you play this hand?" before things get boring. So it's perfectly reasonable to try and inject some humor into your posts or thread titles.

But in the end, the point is to discuss bridge. If you've already been informed that your joke was offensive to some people then why would you continue to place similar "jokes" in later threads? How is purposely offending some people, even if those people seem overly sensitive to you, really adding value to your bridge-related threads?

Why do we need rude language in bridge threads, even if most of us aren't bothered by it? Can't we discuss bridge hands without talking about the sex organs of people or animals? When you try to be funny and people aren't laughing... you shut up about it. You don't keep making the same kinds of jokes just to annoy those people who find it rude.

[cherdano]

Generally speaking (NOT of BBF in particular), the bridge world is a rather sexist environment. This would be a good enough of a reason to be a cautious with remarks that could be understood as sexist.

[mikeh]

I enjoyed reading (most) of the posts here.

I don't think that we need a lot of censorship on titles such as the ones Han used.

I think I understand Jilly's concerns and I applaud her for posting that she was offended. I personally think that that was all that was needed, absent any inappropriate flame war developing to attack her (or others voicing similar sentiments).

Justin is right in arguing that language, including the social acceptability of words earlier generations found objectionable, is constantly evolving. But he is too young to appreciate how far it has moved, and why it is that language that he finds perfectly acceptable can be offensive to those of an older generation.

A few years ago, one of the legal assistants in our office brought in a book from the early 1960s outlining career options for women. It was both amusing and sad. Essentially the book suggested nursing, clerical work and elementary school teacher as the most challenging work a girl should pursue.

The reality is that western society was incredibly sexist just two generations ago. There are a lot of bridge players who grew up in those times. It is common to abhor political correctness, and I mock it whenever I see it, as much as the next person. But political correctness, before it became a caricature of itself (and before it earned that name) had an underlying valid point. Our language shapes our attitudes as much as our attitudes shape our language. Use racist language all the time, and it becomes natural to accept the underlying concepts. Use genderist language, and it becomes natural to accept the underlying concepts.

We would still be living in a world in which girls were being conditioned not to pursue professional careers or to become political leaders if there had been no rejection of sexist language in the early 1970s and beyond. Heck, we still are living in a sexist society in large part. There still are many occupations tacitly reserved for one gender or the other. We have several female lawyers in our small firm, but no male legal assistants nor receptionists. Take a look at the clerical staff in any organization in NA and you won't find many males. Most elementary school teachers are female, and most elementary school prinicpals are male (according to a friend of mine who is a female elementary school teacher).

So when someone objects to sexist language... good for you for raising our awareness of the still-prevalent problems in our society. But there is no need to censor when, as I think we all acknowledge, the poster of the initial post meant no insult or harm.

We can have the original language, and we can recognize that maybe we don't always understand some of the issues that we inadverently raise. By allowing both the post and the protest, we don't censor an innocent and (as far as I can see, relatively benign) post while ensuring that we recognize and perhaps cater in the future to legitimate concerns of others. Make people aware of issues, don't censor them.

[Codo]

jdonn, on Apr 4 2008, 02:49 AM, said:

Wow some people have NO sense of humor.

and some think that their humour should be the world wide standard...

[jdonn]

Codo, on Apr 3 2008, 03:29 PM, said:

jdonn, on Apr 4 2008, 02:49 AM, said:

Wow some people have NO sense of humor.

and some think that their humour should be the world wide standard...

No, I just think it's very easy to ignore things if they don't fit your "standard".