RevBogovac

Boy, have we wandered "off-topic"... But can we please, PLEASE, open up a new one discussing just "what's wrong with that?"

True, true... I must admit I'm a bit "impatient" (coming from "impulsive", so there's [still even more room for] improvement... )

OK, I am happy that you belong to the 17% who actually read the TOS (someone should). I believe more in "good intent" of men and "universal law" (as courts do too...). If there's someting in there that really shouldn't be, it will be corrected. But thankfully TOS (or any kind of "written agreement") aren't "set in stone" so it would actually be silly not to discuss how one sees their interactions with one another... it's just a silly discussion, true... I personally, don't see it as that "important". I wish the "authorities" (on this forum) would see this topic (and do with it what they want). It's more of a "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"(Evelyn Beatrice Hall) kind of issue for me... I deal with it like Jonathan does: And: is certainly true... but... I personally don't see the harm in letting people express themselves the way they choose to. It actually provides us (the "listeners") with a lot of "free" information about the one "sending" the information....

Now that we have - more or less - established what it is they "own", they certainly have that "right". As people also have the "right" to express their feelings about those choices. And the "owners" are then also responsible for the consequences of their choices...

You seem to have missed the study in question discussed here... I only argued that it seemed silly censoring profanity in this forum.

Yes it can, and I am more than open to discussions about the methodology, premises, assumptions, conclusions and so on... But it is stil an empirical study published in a (recent, peer reviewed, highly regarded) scientific journal.

Thank you for asking. Five things I am grateful for today: 1. my daughters, my wife and I are all still breathing; 2. our house has still been a safe home; 3. we had (relatively) clean air, water and food to consume; 4. I met wonderful people today, some helped me, others I helped; 5. I just finished packing for our trip to our summer home in Spain.

One empirical study still proves more than all the opinions in the universe.

@mererdog: OK, you got a point there. But still seems silly to censor how someone discusses something (especially when they are proven more honest). @Brother Kaman: Thank you! @Jonathan H. B. Lobl: True, but if he does not pick wisely he might be left with an empty room... (in this example: with 40 unique visitor for his website in the past month).

That could be a nice comparison. But would it be "the adult thing to do" t maybe first start a discussion with the other club members about those rules? Maybe "innovate" them a bit? And come to some form of "mutual understanding", before running off?

Nah, we're not talking here about what should be discussed but how it could be discussed... Just seems silly (and a bit like those people giving "the evil eye" to people who are "making the sign of the cross" "wrong" or singing a psalm "out of tune" instead of being happy so many peope are present and celebrating").

I can appreciate that, it just seems a bit silly to censor words. I can see why people wouldn't want to see things like personal insults, threats, illegal activity and the likes over here. But individual words... just questioning the status quo a bit.

On a different, and more scientific, note; Gilad Feldman, Huiwen Lian, Michal Kosinski, David Stillwell. Frankly, we do give a damn: The relationship between profanity and honesty. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2017 !Spoiler alert! [they] found a consistent positive relationship between profanity and honesty; profanity was associated with less lying and deception at the individual level and with higher integrity at the society level.

So there is a distinction then; sure, someone who "owns" the forum/website has a say of what it contains (or not). Still a bit silly to censor any ideas that are spread if the "owner" chooses to have a forum on the website. The very idea of a forum is a "designated space for public expression" so any censorship is a bit of a contradiction in terms, isn't it?

The servers store bits of information; essentially 0's and 1's. It's funny to think of those as containing anything more; my ideas are my ideas (in whatever form or by whatever medium I choose to spread them). The fact that someone can choose to monetise them by "repackaging" and "reselling" is their right (as well as the choice to delete them). But I still find it "silly" to see that as "ownership of the words"... If you say/type them, "you own them"... the renter of the sevrers can merely choose to delete them from sight for other visitors... but still "silly"... And I even remember Rev. Calli claiming the "intellectual property" of his words in another forum here...