Topic: Off-topic replies

[Peripatetic Phil]

In an attempt to do my part in keeping all threads on track, I shall respond to all off-topic replies in this thread.

Do you guys not think this is the reason we often have trouble moving on when you both unnecessarily continue to refer to the recent problems?

No.  I think that the reason we often have trouble moving on is that whilst some are willing to make a brief passing mention of earlier problems before focussing on the main theme of the thread, others focus solely on that brief passing mention and then attempt to hijack the thread by focussing solely on the earlier problems and making no reference the main theme of the thread whatsoever.  An example of such a reply can be seen in the thread to which this is a response.

** Phil.

[Secret Santa]

In an attempt to do my part in keeping all threads on track, I shall respond to all off-topic replies in this thread.

Do you guys not think this is the reason we often have trouble moving on when you both unnecessarily continue to refer to the recent problems?

No.  I think that the reason we often have trouble moving on is that whilst some are willing to make a brief passing mention of earlier problems before focussing on the main theme of the thread, others focus solely on that brief passing mention and then attempt to hijack the thread by focussing solely on the earlier problems and making no reference the main theme of the thread whatsoever.  An example of such a reply can be seen in the thread to which this is a response.

** Phil.

While others don't have the wit to just let it lie and move on. And who made you the arbiter of what is and is not on track? I know you ache for moderatorship Phil but at least wait until you actually are one to start strutting your stuff eh?

The irony in all this, of course, is that you are one of the main perpetrators of knocking threads off track with your irrelevant waffle about which Dutchy Ostrich egg you've lightly coddled today or what wet dream you experienced at some other unimportant time. Give it a rest old man!  :

[Peripatetic Phil]

Santa, please see signature in lieu of any further replies.
** Phil.

[goncalo]

I have to agree with SS. I think your posts do go off the rails a lot, Phil, and in most occasions with tidbits of information relevant to a very few minority. I don't want to extend this into a long discussion, but personally I don't see why this thread had to be created

[Peripatetic Phil]

I think your posts do go off the rails a lot, Phil, and in most occasions with tidbits of information relevant to a very few minority. I don't want to extend this into a long discussion, but personally I don't see why this thread had to be created

I think that's a perfectly fair and accurate observation, Goncalo, and not one with which I would seek to differ.  However, if you look back at the post to which I replied in starting this thread, you will see that (a) that was not what was alleged, (b) it was made in a thread to which it had no relevance, and (c) it was far longer than either of the relevant parts to which it took exception.  I moved it here so as not to further pollute the original thread, but felt that a rebuttal was warranted.  I have no wish to prolong this debate (which has nothing whatsoever to do with curry) and will be perfectly happy to leave it at that.

** Phil.

[Peripatetic Phil]

What temperature removes excrement adequately to make it a suitable cooking instrument?

I notice that George has expunged the offending word (an action of which I thoroughly approve) but on thinking about it I realised that in everyday speech I might well speak of... (moderated)

[Peripatetic Phil]

It would seem that a moderator who prefers to remain anonymous has seen fit not only to remove the non-words ... bulk of remaining text moderated-out since there are far too many bad words, for it to be worth editing them out. You should be ashamed.

Not only double standards, but standards that appear to favour outright bad language over an attempt to avoid giving offence by merely suggesting the word rather than using it.

** Phil.

[Peripatetic Phil]

To assist George, who has now acknowledged that it was he who moderated the initial post in this thread, I am now re-posting the same message with all instances of the c-word (meaning faeces) and the s-word (also meaning faeces) eliminated.  I hope that this will enable him to leave the remainder of the post unchanged, since it was a genuine attempt on my part to initiate an intelligent discussion on why two slang words that both mean "the act of defaecation" and "faeces" can evoke very different reactions in the same person. 

What I original wrote was (pre-moderated, and re-expressed because I can no longer remember my exact wording) :

What temperature removes excrement adequately to make it a suitable cooking instrument?

I notice that George has expunged the offending word (an action of which I thoroughly approve) but on thinking about it I realised that in everyday speech I might well speak of "removing all the [1] (from something/somewhere) but never of "removing all the [2] (from something/somewhere).  Why is it, I wonder, that two words, both slang, that mean exactly the same thing, can evoke such different reactions in one and the same individual ?  Is [2] inherently "worse" than [1], or is there some other factor involved ?

** Phil.

[1] The c-word; as a verb, the act of defaecation; as a noun, faeces.
[1] The s-word; as a verb, the act of defaecation; as a noun, faeces.

[George]

Phil - why do you insist in making these posts? Do members of this forum really want to read paragraphs full of the type of words you are using, even if they are not technically swear words or 'bad language'?

[Peripatetic Phil]

Because, George, I was genuinely interested in understanding why I find the s-word abhorrent but the c-word acceptable, and wondered whether other members of the forum experienced a similar reaction. 

** Phil.