Maybe you shouldn't critizise untill you've read some more then?

Me pointing out bad language had nothing to do with the "negative" post. You should've read the entire thread to see that I actually said I don't see what the fuss is about if Jon refuses to sign an autograph.

Ice

Well I wouldnt say that I critisized anyone specific here. I merely stated my point of view about the subject and how its often seen that some hardcore fans react ridiculously on a messageboard. And it is kinda remarkable that the first 4-5 threads I read...all turns out the way I wrote in my first post in this thread.

You're right. You didnt reply to a negative post. You kinda converted the post into a negative one by going off-topic with a minor issue that majority has no problem with.

Jon refusing to sign an autograph...i dont see the fuss either. But he could at least have spoken more nicely ;)

that is not entirely true. Some Mods have their own interpertation of that. Next to that they aren't consequent, wich makes the whole 'rule-policy' thing unreliable.

That's debatable. There are many here who agree with me, but just choose to keep a lower profile about it. You can find many posts about it.

Ice

Rane, I wouldn't speak for the majority. From what I see, the majority appreciate it when people use proper grammar. A mistake here and there is one thing, but when people make a mess of entire paragraphs, it makes it really difficult to understand what they are trying to say.

if a persons post is difficult to read and understand then members should ignore the post rather than be so critical. With no response the person will soon not post.

I find it difficult to read swear words and this has a negative effect on a post and what the person is really trying to say, so what should I do post commenting on every swear word !!!!!!! I would be here all day , in order to remain a part of this forum I have had to learn to accept and ignore people swearing, this is difficult when I dont agree with it .

Bad grammar should be accepted and ignored in the same manner .... I thought this was a tolerate board towards people from all walks of life including their grammar base !

Dawn

Who's to define what words are 'swear' words? Some people might see words like crap or damn to be 'swear' words, others might see bloody or bastard, or shit, ****, arse - it all depends on what you think? Why should specific words be dis-allowed just because some people are 'offended' by them? Why can't I say shit instead of pooh, or use any other 'swear' word in a context if I think it fits what I'm trying to express?

Re using swear words in a context , I get the pooh and shit... they mean the same thing... however the meaNing of the f word is not used in context on this board !

If you cant say it to a policeman or it is not allowed in the media/press then its a swear word !

Dawn

Context is important of course. If someone perhaps said something and I replied 'That is ****ing stupid' then it could be fine in context, but if I used it as an insult to say 'You ****ing idiot' then perhaps not - but any insult, regardless of words, shouldn't really be allowed.

What if I make up some words instead of ****, shit, cunt etc? They would mean exactly the same, but no-one would have heard them because I'd be making them up, right?

Reminds me of an episode of the Jim Henson show 'Dinosaurs' from years ago. Of course as a kid it was just funny to watch, but it did carry messages too. The one I refer to is when the word 'smoo' is used on TV and the baby picks it up and starts using it, and they are all shocked, because they say it is a 'dirty' word, meaning the dirt on the bottom of a dinosaurs feet. It's done very well, pointing out just how stupid it is to be 'offended' by a simple word.

I remember that show :) I even remember lecturing my kids that there are no bad words - just bad intentions.

Kathleen