Evil Gays and Lesbians Taking Over Ex-Mormon Boards.

[_Dr. Shades]

Since when has misspelling or a word used inappropriately been grounds for censorship?

Censorship and auto-correction are two entirely different things.

This is a bulletin board. It’s hardly subject to editorial review by intellectuals who work for publishers and who stand responsible for the content of the expression of an individual.

True, but every little bit helps. I'd hate to see this board begin looking like the comments to YouTube videos.

It would seem that for the sake of transparency, it should be made clear that “moderators” can do anything they like including rewording a post to make it say what the actual poster did not state and did not intend.

Although the moderators technologically can do such a thing, they never actually do. Certainly you must know that by now.

Why an issue over the contraction? Educated readers will know if a contraction is used harmoniously with intent of communication. If it’s misspelled or used incorrectly, why not let it stand?

Because then the board starts looking as though a bunch of clever terrier mixes discovered that little marks appear on the screen when they press their paws randomly on the keyboard.

There is no need for “moderator intervention” on spelling or a misuse of a word.

There's no need for Sheryl Crow, lederhosen, or bottled water, either.

Absent a clear, concise statement for tampering with posts, the changing of words, spelling, or intent makes for distortion, discourages honest expression, and appears a manipulation of the words of others for some concealed motive(s) of those who inject themselves in such manipulation.

That's probably the overreaction of the decade. Why complain when the auto-correct feature makes it look as though you have an I.Q. in the triple digits?

[_JAK]

Since when has misspelling or a word used inappropriately been grounds for censorship?

Censorship and auto-correction are two entirely different things.

This is a bulletin board. It’s hardly subject to editorial review by intellectuals who work for publishers and who stand responsible for the content of the expression of an individual.

True, but every little bit helps. I'd hate to see this board begin looking like the comments to YouTube videos.

It would seem that for the sake of transparency, it should be made clear that “moderators” can do anything they like including rewording a post to make it say what the actual poster did not state and did not intend.

Although the moderators technologically can do such a thing, they never actually do. Certainly you must know that by now.

Why an issue over the contraction? Educated readers will know if a contraction is used harmoniously with intent of communication. If it’s misspelled or used incorrectly, why not let it stand?

Because then the board starts looking as though a bunch of clever terrier mixes discovered that little marks appear on the screen when they press their paws randomly on the keyboard.

There is no need for “moderator intervention” on spelling or a misuse of a word.

There's no need for Sheryl Crow, lederhosen, or bottled water, either.

Absent a clear, concise statement for tampering with posts, the changing of words, spelling, or intent makes for distortion, discourages honest expression, and appears a manipulation of the words of others for some concealed motive(s) of those who inject themselves in such manipulation.

That's probably the overreaction of the decade. Why complain when the auto-correct feature makes it look as though you have an I.Q. in the triple digits?

Sorry, but you’re not persuasive. If people write poorly, that should stand. It’s their work. If they can’t (or must that be cannot) express well, that too should be revealed. Why try to make people look contrary to what they are either by attempting to improve their construction or by distorting it?

Your use of “never” with regard to rewording posts is incorrect. You have already admitted to changing what people post and that “moderators” do that. It’s also incorrect that “autocorrect feature makes it look as though you have an I.Q. in the triple digits..” (You asked it as a question and why anyone would object.) You have not made a credible case for moderator intervention in changing words, changing meaning, or changing appearance of presentation.

And if “autocorrect” actually did what you claim, you would be admitting that the “feature” alters the reality, the authenticity of the writer.

That anyone can alter the post of another and make it stand as if it were written by the quoted person makes for unreliable and untrustworthy policy. Having said that, I recognize it’s your board and the board of those who “moderate” or give authority to others to “moderate.” You (and your keepers) can do anything you please.

You have offered no refutation to the criticism. In order to make your criticism look better, you can simply delete my response to it. You could pretend it's off-topic. But it's not off topic to your post just above.

[_Dr. Shades]

Sorry, but you’re not persuasive. If people write poorly, that should stand. It’s their work. If they can’t (or must that be cannot) express well, that too should be revealed. Why try to make people look contrary to what they are either by attempting to improve their construction or by distorting it?

I understand your point, but all else aside, the auto-correct feature is in place to preserve my sanity. If I left y'all to your own devices, I'd end up in the corner balled up in the fetal position, drooling and pulling out my hair.

Your use of “never” with regard to rewording posts is incorrect. You have already admitted to changing what people post and that “moderators” do that.

Some words are auto-corrected for misspellings, improper punctuation, and vulgarity. Your meaning and your message is never tampered with.

It’s also incorrect that “autocorrect feature makes it look as though you have an I.Q. in the triple digits..”

Oh, you'd be surprised. Just trust me on that one.

(You asked it as a question and why anyone would object.) You have not made a credible case for moderator intervention in changing words, changing meaning, or changing appearance of presentation.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to let the board devolve into this.

You have offered no refutation to the criticism. In order to make your criticism look better, you can simply delete my response to it.

That's not what we do around here. Stick around a while and you'll learn that.

You could pretend it's off-topic. But it's not off topic to your post just above.

Why on earth would I pretend it's off-topic? You're making no sense.

[_ludwigm]

...
If people write poorly, that should stand. It’s their work. If they can’t (or must that be cannot) (or may that be caNew Testament) express well, that too should be revealed. Why try to make people look contrary to what they are either by attempting to improve their construction or by distorting it?
...
... the “feature” alters the reality, the authenticity of the writer.
....

I agree with these thoughts. In speaking, we have the facial expression, the body language, which are helping us understand better the message. By this better understanding I can better articulate my next comment, or - in many cases - ignore the whole message.

Please imagine one representative of a local government, who says to another "I kick off your spectacles you d!ckhead" then continues the handling of the actual financial case. How could You evaluate his opinion about the case? (taken from real life)
In message boards, after some sentence I can create for myself the character of the writer (OK, it may be wrong).

The spelling, the vocabulary substitutes the personal presence. As such, it can be better than the help of the stupid machines.

[_JAK]

Sorry, but you’re not persuasive. If people write poorly, that should stand. It’s their work. If they can’t (or must that be cannot) express well, that too should be revealed. Why try to make people look contrary to what they are either by attempting to improve their construction or by distorting it?

I understand your point, but all else aside, the auto-correct feature is in place to preserve my sanity. If I left y'all to your own devices, I'd end up in the corner balled up in the fetal position, drooling and pulling out my hair.

Your use of “never” with regard to rewording posts is incorrect. You have already admitted to changing what people post and that “moderators” do that.

Some words are auto-corrected for misspellings, improper punctuation, and vulgarity. Your meaning and your message is never tampered with.

It’s also incorrect that “autocorrect feature makes it look as though you have an I.Q. in the triple digits..”

Oh, you'd be surprised. Just trust me on that one.

(You asked it as a question and why anyone would object.) You have not made a credible case for moderator intervention in changing words, changing meaning, or changing appearance of presentation.

Sorry, but I'm not willing to let the board devolve into this.

You have offered no refutation to the criticism. In order to make your criticism look better, you can simply delete my response to it.

That's not what we do around here. Stick around a while and you'll learn that.

You could pretend it's off-topic. But it's not off topic to your post just above.

Why on earth would I pretend it's off-topic? You're making no sense.

I enjoyed reading your response above.

On the first point, I can understand frustration with poorly written material. I share that. However, what people say would seem to stand or fall on its own merit and reveal their own thinking (or lack of it).

Punctuation can make all the difference even if the word order is identical.
To wit:
Woman without her man would be a savage. (Woman is the savage.)

Woman, without her, man would be a savage. (Man is the savage.)

Note the placement of two commas in the same word order entirely changes the meaning of the words themselves.

There is no improper punctuation in the above examples. But, the meaning is entirely different if a moderator removed or added the commas to the statement written by a participant.

I can understand your issue with “vulgarity.” However, even that is revealing about people. I have noticed “vulgarity” quite clear to any reader where a few letters are replaced with a dash or an asterisk with a sufficient number of actual letters to make quite clear exactly what word or words were intended. Perhaps “vulgarity” is in the eye of the beholder. Is “vulgarity” actually diminished by such tactics? I’m skeptical. Please understand that I’m not defending vulgarity.

As for “off topic,” entire posts have been moved to another location on a moderator’s evaluation that the material was “off topic.” When I witnessed that, previous posts paved the way to responses by others which were judged “off topic” and moved.

I mentioned it because I have seen it happen. A debate ensued taking many posts regarding the ethics or power of a moderator to move some posts and not others. That left a guessing game regarding justification. In one case which I witnessed, posts were moved then moved again back to their original location.

That is a response to your question: “Why on earth would I pretend it's off-topic?”

As I understand the “rules,” any post can be moved or deleted for any reason or whim of a “moderator.” It can also be modified as you yourself have described for any reason or whim of a “moderator.”

Finally, I am pleased to see that you allowed the sequence of posts since we have discussed relevant issues as those issues evolved under a topic-title which seems unrelated to this interlude exchange. In addition, I understand that attempting “to moderate” is likely to produce frustration in regard to what moderation is appropriate.

[_Dr. Shades]

I enjoyed reading your response above.

Thanks.

On the first point, I can understand frustration with poorly written material. I share that. However, what people say would seem to stand or fall on its own merit and reveal their own thinking (or lack of it).

That's what I originally thought, too. Unfortunately, however, as time wore on, I was less and less able to stand it.

If I hadn't gotten my degree in English, maybe I could've kept enduring it indefinitely, but alas, life seems to enjoy throwing us those curveballs.

Punctuation can make all the difference even if the word order is identical.
To wit:
Woman without her man would be a savage. (Woman is the savage.)

Woman, without her, man would be a savage. (Man is the savage.)

Note the placement of two commas in the same word order entirely changes the meaning of the words themselves.

C'mon, dude. You're preaching to the choir here. Give me some credit!

There is no improper punctuation in the above examples. But, the meaning is entirely different if a moderator removed or added the commas to the statement written by a participant.

You don't think I already know that?? Look, the only time I program the auto-correct to do anything with punctuation is for missing apostrophes within contractions. NONE OF US MESS WITH COMMAS OR COMMA PLACEMENT AT ALL.

I can understand your issue with “vulgarity.” However, even that is revealing about people. I have noticed “vulgarity” quite clear to any reader where a few letters are replaced with a dash or an asterisk with a sufficient number of actual letters to make quite clear exactly what word or words were intended. Perhaps “vulgarity” is in the eye of the beholder. Is “vulgarity” actually diminished by such tactics? I’m skeptical. Please understand that I’m not defending vulgarity.

You'll be interested to learn that originally we didn't do anything with vulgarity at all. We only became concerned with it after THE COMMUNITY made it clear that they wanted us moderators to do something about it. Anything and everything we do vis-a-vis swear words is due only to the wishes of the community, that's all.

As for “off topic,” entire posts have been moved to another location on a moderator’s evaluation that the material was “off topic.” When I witnessed that, previous posts paved the way to responses by others which were judged “off topic” and moved.

That's because such posts were, indeed, off-topic. Trust me, my moderators and I only move something when it's glaringly, blazingly, brilliantly obvious that it really does need to be moved.

Trust us. When one of my moderators or I move something, you can rest as sweetly as a babe in its mother's arms that we're right c. 100% of the time.

I mentioned it because I have seen it happen. A debate ensued taking many posts regarding the ethics or power of a moderator to move some posts and not others. That left a guessing game regarding justification. In one case which I witnessed, posts were moved then moved again back to their original location.

That's probably because someone bitched and moaned so much that we got tired of arguing with them.

As I understand the “rules,” any post can be moved or deleted for any reason or whim of a “moderator.”

YOU'RE WRONG. YOU'RE ABYSMALLY, HORRIFICALLY, AND UNFATHOMABLY WRONG.

It can also be modified as you yourself have described for any reason or whim of a “moderator.”

WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. WE DON'T DO THAT. Oh, and just in case you failed to get the message the 36th time, WE DON'T DO THAT.

Finally, I am pleased to see that you allowed the sequence of posts since we have discussed relevant issues as those issues evolved under a topic-title which seems unrelated to this interlude exchange. In addition, I understand that attempting “to moderate” is likely to produce frustration in regard to what moderation is appropriate.

No, the only time frustration is produced is when people, such as yourself, make all sorts of wild assumptions and make all sorts of crazy accusations even after my moderators and I have established an ironclad track-record of fair and even-handed moderation.