# Who said what?



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

*bimmerfest 5-Series Welcome Page?*

SB540:

Your post:

"Avitars are for homos, not that there is anything wrong with that."

Is in conflict with the Bimmerfest Terms of Use. Specifically, Item 6.

It has been moved to our "controversial" section and reported to the board admins in an effort to prevent offense to our members.

If I may be of further assistance to you, please let me know.


----------



## sb540 (Jan 25, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> SB540:
> 
> Your post:
> 
> ...


Sorry, I had no idea that you would be offended by my joke. I will not make any more jokes about you being a **** now that I know that you don't think that is funny.


----------



## Ågent99 (Jan 7, 2002)

sb540 said:


> Sorry, I had no idea that you would be offended by my joke. I will not make any more jokes about you being a **** now that I know that you don't think that is funny.


SB,

Just chill and everything will be fine...  We aren't into censorship here or anything and tolerate quite a bit but please don't push it.

Chris


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

sb540 said:


> Sorry, I had no idea that you would be offended by my joke. I will not make any more jokes about you being a **** now that I know that you don't think that is funny.


When you referenced avitars(SIC) and whom they were for, you possibly offended EVERY Bimmerfest user with an avatar. I regret applying your personal jab to a more universal audience.

In the future, if you have something you would like to express to me personally, I am happy to take your comments over a private message. I would caution you, though that private messages are subject to the very same TOU.


----------



## sb540 (Jan 25, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> Whether in spelling or in the proper use of our forums, I'm happy to have helped steer you in the right direction, SB. :thumbup: I have found these public forums a great place for Bimmerfest users who have not read the terms of use to gain more experience with the terms' intent. With that in mind, I ask that you share any personal feelings unrelated to E39s with the appropriate person or in the appropriate forum.
> 
> I regret that you foster the memory of my decisions from the past. I offer you my apologies once again for anything that may have offended you.
> 
> Your suggestion to keep this thread on topic is a good one. I hope I have sufficiently explained my intent behind my personal address to you and I hope that it helps a few more people enjoy their experience here at the fest!


OK OK, but here is the thing: it was a joke. A joke. Jokes are OK. I wasn't not being serious. It was for laughs. I was not sharing personal feelings unrelated to E39s. I was responding to Dave's signature where he expresses desire for an avatar, and in some sense poking fun at you because you also, before you had an avatar, made posts expressing your desire to have one. If I had said "Avatars are for ego maniacs," would you still have deleted the post on the premise that it might be insulting if taken seriously? Don't you think humor has a place on the board? The reason I speculate that you are still mad at me is that I just can't imagine that you did not understand that my post was a joke. If it is the political correctness issue about not using the term ****, then OK, I get it, but if it is just that jokes are not allowed, then I really don't see why. I am really trying to stop responding here, but I sincerely don't understand where you are coming from.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Sometimes a joke is only a joke...


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

sb540 said:


> If it is the political correctness issue about not using the term ****, then OK, I get it,


 You nailed it, SB.

Jokes are certainly welcome here, SB. I am sure you don't need to hear how difficult it is for one's tone or intent to be discerned from a bunch of words on a page. Emoticons help, but they're really just little pictures, so who knows what's really being said there? It's great to have every brand of humor here. I just want to make sure we're as funny as we can be to everyone concerned.

Bimmerfest is a very diverse group- both inside and outside of the E39 community. Lots of these diverse people are exposed to different forums by using the "View New Posts" option. It was my intent to shield your words from a member who may be offended and who would feel the need to react in the absense of reaction.

Thank you for challenging my opinions. A challenge- win, lose or draw- brings experience. Thanks, also for being an adult and expressing yourself clearly. One of the things I like most about the folks over here is that they write clearly (most of the time) and can have an adult conversation without throwing the F-bomb or similar words around (again- most of the time). "Profanity is the tool of the weak mind." And believe me- my mind has been weak plenty of times. :angel:


----------



## 1RADBMR (Sep 24, 2003)

sb540 said:


> Sorry, I had no idea that you would be offended by my joke. I will not make any more jokes about you being a **** now that I know that you don't think that is funny.


Now if you had said, "Avatars are for wussies!" you would hve received an outpouring of support. Particular from the Avatar challenged on this board. *sniff*


----------



## Malachi (Sep 30, 2003)

*Thanks Dave,*

I am really beginning to feel at home here. :thumbup:


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

Hey Paul,

Do you really not like avatars???

I will hook you up if you'd like...


No poop!


----------



## SS (Dec 20, 2001)

PropellerHead said:


> You nailed it, SB.
> 
> Jokes are certainly welcome here, SB. I am sure you don't need to hear how difficult it is for one's tone or intent to be discerned from a bunch of words on a page. Emoticons help, but they're really just little pictures, so who knows what's really being said there? It's great to have every brand of humor here. I just want to make sure we're as funny as we can be to everyone concerned.
> 
> ...


PropellerHead...if I may, I would like to comment on this. Your points make absolutely perfect sense, and I will respectfully state that I do not understand how it could be difficult to understand. Uttering derrogatory comments about something by referring to it as "****" is equivalent to saying something derrogatory about "****'s". Regardless of whether it is a joke, it is still a negative, and offensive comment to some.

Example, if I said as a joke, "that black person looks like a monkey" as a joke (you all know I am black, so, don't call me a white racist!), that would still arouse racial tension. Joke, or not...it was a potentially offensive comment.


----------



## Ågent99 (Jan 7, 2002)

SS said:


> Example, if I said as a joke, "that black person looks like a monkey" as a joke (you all know I am black, so, don't call me a white racist!), that would still arouse racial tension. Joke, or not...it was a potentially offensive comment.


:wow: You're black???!!!!

_99 puts eyeglasses on that allow him to see color_

Ah!!!! So you are...how about that! I'll be darned....



Chris


----------



## sb540 (Jan 25, 2002)

SS said:


> PropellerHead...if I may, I would like to comment on this. Your points make absolutely perfect sense, and I will respectfully state that I do not understand how it could be difficult to understand. Uttering derrogatory comments about something by referring to it as "****" is equivalent to saying something derrogatory about "****'s". Regardless of whether it is a joke, it is still a negative, and offensive comment to some.
> 
> Example, if I said as a joke, "that black person looks like a monkey" as a joke (you all know I am black, so, don't call me a white racist!), that would still arouse racial tension. Joke, or not...it was a potentially offensive comment.


Shane, I do get the point. While I disagree that censorship is the best way to respond to ideas that the censor disagrees with, I actually have another question.

Question: would it also be true that using the term "ghetto" to indicate that a person or item is undesirable would be equally unacceptable?

As I see it, the use of the term "ghetto" as a derogatory adjective is grounded in the assumption that things (or people) who are from geographic areas that are referred to by the dominant cultural group as the "ghetto" are inferior or undesirable. Taking it only one small step further, would you agree that the term "ghetto" is essentially racist because, rightly or wrongly, most people view the "ghetto" as a place where economically disadvantaged African-Americans live? "Ghetto" being used as a synonym for tasteless, inferior, second-rate or cheap?

I ask this for a reason:

http://www.bimmerfest.com/forums/showthread.php?t=42838


----------



## kowached (Jun 20, 2003)

*Lol...*

This place gets more and more like RF every day


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

sb540 said:


> Shane, I do get the point. While I disagree that censorship is the best way to respond to ideas that the censor disagrees with, I actually have another question.
> 
> Question: would it also be true that using the term "ghetto" to indicate that a person or item is undesirable would be equally unacceptable?
> 
> ...


Let's answer your question with some help from Webster:

*Ghetto:* Has _three_ definitions. One of them (3) resembles quite acurately a description of the armrest found in the lower class E39's around Europe.
_1)A section of a city occupied by a minority group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure. 
2)An often walled quarter in a European city to which Jews were restricted beginning in the Middle Ages. 
3)Something that resembles the restriction or isolation of a city ghetto: "trapped in ethnic or pink-collar managerial job ghettoes" (Diane Weathers)._

Aside from the obvious classification of the human race, *****:* has only _one_ definition applicable to your post:
_1)Used as a disparaging term for a gay man or lesbian_

You see, the term '****' is clearly defined to be disparraging within your context. Since you later apologized and made it clear you were referencing homosexuals, I have no choice but to believe that you were in fact, making an inappropriate remark.

I withdraw my thanks to you for handling yourself as an adult. Your passive stance on this issue and your desire to continue with it clearly indicate that you have some issue to work out for yourself. I regret that this situation is still bothersome for you and I sincerely hope you can become an even more productive member of this group.

Finally, like Shane, I will clarify that I should not be percieved as racist because I have relatives who were murdered in the very same context of WWII ghettos mentioned by Webster in definition 2. Further, the relatives who survived came to the US in 1938 and lived as a poor minority... in a ghetto.


----------



## sb540 (Jan 25, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> Let's answer your question with some help from Webster:
> 
> *Ghetto:* Has _three_ definitions. One of them (3) resembles quite acurately a description of the armrest found in the lower class E39's around Europe.
> _1)A section of a city occupied by a minority group who live there especially because of social, economic, or legal pressure.
> ...


Ok, so now that we have our own thread, let me respond.

First, so which of the three dictionary meanings did you intend the word "ghetto" to have in your post?

Second, are you actually expecting anyone to believe that you have never heard of the word "ghetto" used for the meaning I described?

Third, it appears that you can dish it out but you can't take it. To me, you indicated a desire to play the political correctness game. OK, I can play that game. I admitted that, without meaning any offense, I used a non-PC term and I pointed out a place where you, without meaining any offense, also used a non-politically correct term. Rather than admitting it, you attack me for not being an adult and offer that it is OK for you to use the term "ghetto" in a disparaging way because you "have relatives who were murdered in the very same context of WWII ghettos mentioned by Webster in definition."

Fourth, what "passive stance?" I feel that I have been quite agressive about this.

Fifth, as to your comment that "I withdraw my thanks to you for handling yourself as an adult," you might want to pull out that dictionary of yours and look up the word "pompous."

Sixth and finally, are you really mad? I am just having fun.


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

sb540 said:


> Sixth and finally, are you really mad? I am just having fun.


 It's all good, Bubba. 
PM sent as it should have been some time ago.


----------



## Jon Shafer (Dec 15, 2001)

PropellerHead said:


> It's all good, Bubba.
> PM sent as it should have been some time ago.


I have met both of you guys face-to-face...

:grouphug:

Please repeat my mantra:

This place is *not* like RF, this place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF, place is *not* like RF......


----------



## PropellerHead (Jan 3, 2002)

Jon Shafer said:


> :grouphug:










:rofl: :rofl:


----------



## Ågent99 (Jan 7, 2002)

PropellerHead said:


> :rofl: :rofl:


'of"?

:lmao:

Chris


----------

