|
|
Fantasy » alt.fan.pratchett » semi- (R) Introduction and general rant.
| semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275221] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 02:43 |
|
1. Introduction.
Hi, I'm Michael Trees. I'm 17 and a (obviously) big fan of Pratchett's
works (hands around some chocolates to foster good favour). I live on
the north coast of NSW in Australia. I've been lurking here for a fair
while, and finally got the guts to start my own topic.
2. Rant
The main thing that spurned me to write this is our public school
censors. Their job is to block innapropriate sites from school networks
in schools (which I agree with), however, I have cause to think that
they may be a little heavy handed.
Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school, only to
find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group". This, naturally,
has caused much confusion on my part, as I'd been following afp from
school for over a year before this.
I will conclude my two sections now with hello, and Aaargh.
treesy.
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275241 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 04:30 |
|
treesy wrote:
> Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school,
> only to find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group".
Okay, guys, knock off the flirting.
;-)
--
Anastasia, 4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons, Bondage-happy predator,
Speaker-To-Students, AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion &
AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED "If you can't be a good example, you'll
just have to be a horrible warning." C. Aird, _His Burial Too_
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275243 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 04:26 |
|
treesy <treesy2 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school, only
> to find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group". This,
> naturally, has caused much confusion on my part, as I'd been
> following afp from school for over a year before this.
It's certainly a group containing adult content, but not worse than that we
have fundie regulars here, who cope with the occasional innuendo or talk
about sex.
Sex being a normal part of life, it would be strange to repress it from any
generic group, so I would guess that your school's filter blocks most talk
newsgroups.
Remember this, and take it into consideration when voting in the future.
:-)
> I will conclude my two sections now with hello, and Aaargh.
Hodges?
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275245 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 04:38 |
|
treesy wrote:
> 1. Introduction.
> Hi, I'm Michael Trees. I'm 17 and a (obviously) big fan of Pratchett's
> works (hands around some chocolates to foster good favour). I live on
> the north coast of NSW in Australia. I've been lurking here for a fair
> while, and finally got the guts to start my own topic.
Hello and nice to meetcha. Pull up a chair and call the cat a wossname.
> Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school, only
> to find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group". This,
> naturally, has caused much confusion on my part, as I'd been
> following afp from school for over a year before this.
If this is a sex group then the female posters have seriously been holding
out on me. ::ducks::
I'd say that very few of the threads ever go above a pg-13 rating. How does
your school decide what's smut and what's not? Do they scan for certain
words? Because if hedgehog, chocolate, spider and Terry Pratchett are common
terms on sex groups then the internet is even more twisted and bizarre than
I had imagined.
--
Puck (onstage): I am that merry wanderer of the night!
Peaseblossom (in audience): "I am that merry wanderer of the night",
indeed! "I am that
giggling-dangerous-totally-bloody-psychotic-menace-to-life and limb,
more like." -Neil Gaiman
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275247 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 04:49 |
|
On 2006-05-30 21:30:39 -0500, "Anastasia" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> said:
> treesy wrote:
>
>> Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school,
>> only to find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group".
>
> Okay, guys, knock off the flirting.
>
> ;-)
Girls however are encouraged to kindly kick the flirting up a notch.
--
Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border. Take the dirt, raise the
levees in New Orleans, and put the Florida alligators in the moat.
Are there any other problems you would like for me to solve?
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275253 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 05:03 |
|
Puck <Kormos.4 [at] osu.edu> wrote:
>
> I'd say that very few of the threads ever go above a pg-13 rating.
> How does your school decide what's smut and what's not? Do they scan
> for certain words? Because if hedgehog, chocolate, spider and Terry
> Pratchett are common terms on sex groups then the internet is even
> more twisted and bizarre than I had imagined.
A quick google shows:
shit: 1980 occurrences on a.f.p.
piss: 980
fuck: 918
cunt: 52
cocksucker: 3
motherfucker: 17
tits/teats: 153
Personally, I think we're way too scatological here, and I'd love to see
more teats.
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275254 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 05:46 |
|
Puck wrote:
>
> Hello and nice to meetcha. Pull up a chair and call the cat a wossname.
>
will do.
>
> If this is a sex group then the female posters have seriously been holding
> out on me. ::ducks::
>
> I'd say that very few of the threads ever go above a pg-13 rating. How does
> your school decide what's smut and what's not? Do they scan for certain
> words? Because if hedgehog, chocolate, spider and Terry Pratchett are common
> terms on sex groups then the internet is even more twisted and bizarre than
> I had imagined.
> --
You're probably right, or at least, that's the conclusion that I came
to.
As for hedgehogs on sex groups, maybe they have been reading Pratchett.
treesy.
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275255 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 05:48 |
|
René wrote:
> On 2006-05-30 21:30:39 -0500, "Anastasia"
> <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> said:
>> treesy wrote:
>>
>>> Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school,
>>> only to find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group".
>>
>> Okay, guys, knock off the flirting.
>>
>> ;-)
>
> Girls however are encouraged to kindly kick the flirting up a notch.
I do what I can, but this is a no-binaries group. Besides, when the subject
of not posting a link to the handcuff pic came up, only Rocky figured it
out.
I can't help the people who can't hold up their end of the flirting.
--
Anastasia, 4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons, Bondage-happy predator,
Speaker-To-Students, AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion &
AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED "If you can't be a good example, you'll
just have to be a horrible warning." C. Aird, _His Burial Too_
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275259 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 06:06 |
|
On 2006-05-30 22:03:16 -0500, "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com> said:
> Puck <Kormos.4 [at] osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> I'd say that very few of the threads ever go above a pg-13 rating.
>> How does your school decide what's smut and what's not? Do they scan
>> for certain words? Because if hedgehog, chocolate, spider and Terry
>> Pratchett are common terms on sex groups then the internet is even
>> more twisted and bizarre than I had imagined.
>
> A quick google shows:
>
> shit: 1980 occurrences on a.f.p.
> piss: 980
> fuck: 918
> cunt: 52
> cocksucker: 3
> motherfucker: 17
> tits/teats: 153
I find your search terms a little unsettling.
9,660 results for sex
1,180 results for naked
127 results for intercourse
65 results for boobs
57 results for orgasms (just _one_ doesn't count as sex)
7 results for vestigial virgins
Remember? The phrase was "sex groups"?
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275260 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 06:12 |
|
René wrote:
> 57 results for orgasms (just _one_ doesn't count as sex)
Sure it does!
--
Anastasia, 4th swordswoman of the afpocalypse.
AFPMinister of Flexible Weapons, Bondage-happy predator,
Speaker-To-Students, AFPMistress to peachy ashie passion &
AFPDeliciousSnack to 8'FED "If you can't be a good example, you'll
just have to be a horrible warning." C. Aird, _His Burial Too_
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275262 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 06:46 |
|
René <Kar98 [at] The-Coalition.US> wrote:
>
> I find your search terms a little unsettling.
>
[...]
> 7 results for vestigial virgins
Hah! Any fule knows there should be 16!
Regards,
--
*Art
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275264 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 08:36 |
|
Arthur Hagen wrote:
> René <Kar98 [at] The-Coalition.US> wrote:
>
>>
>> I find your search terms a little unsettling.
>>
> [...]
>
>> 7 results for vestigial virgins
>
>
> Hah! Any fule knows there should be 16!
>
> Regards,
Are we lengthening that Christmas, Ooh, scratch that, Hogswatch song.
On the 16th day of Hogswatch my true love sent to me 16 vestal virgins...
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275265 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 08:48 |
|
"treesy" <treesy2 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
> Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school, only to
> find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group". This, naturally,
> has caused much confusion on my part, as I'd been following afp from
> school for over a year before this.
Hi, welcome. Just to add that sometimes the description of a newsgroup is
bizarre, or else someone's idea of a joke. Google Groups has:
alt.fan.sting
Description: See alt.sex.bestiality.with-bees
(Ok, ok, I confess, I *was* a fan, but well on the way to recovery.)
Maybe you need to invite your IT people to browse afp and unblock it. Or
maybe not.
|
|
|
| (I) Re: semi- {R} Introduction and general rant. [message #275266 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 08:52 |
|
"Anastasia" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:VI8fg.7180$921.4403 [at] newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> René wrote:
>
>> 57 results for orgasms (just _one_ doesn't count as sex)
>
> Sure it does!
>
Stacie talking about 57 and orgasms.
You know we're going to have to put a gag order on that don't you.
Anthony
--
I'm not bad.
I'm fairly new to mild naughtiness.
- Jeff, Coupling.
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275269 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 08:59 |
|
Anastasia house_damodred [at] yahoo.com wrote in
<km8fg.7170$921.2674 [at] newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>:
>
> I can't help the people who can't hold up their end of the flirting.
>
Surely when they hold up their end it's something other than flirting?
--
eric
www.ericjarvis.co.uk
"live fast, die only if strictly necessary"
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275270 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 09:29 |
|
Arthur Hagen said:
> treesy <treesy2 [at] hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school, only
>> to find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group". This,
>> naturally, has caused much confusion on my part, as I'd been
>> following afp from school for over a year before this.
>
> It's certainly a group containing adult content, but not worse than that
> we have fundie regulars here, who cope with the occasional innuendo or
> talk about sex.
We also have at least one regular here who does not consider himself a
"fundie", who would love to be able to allow his Pratchett-reading children
to read afp, but can't because the level of so-called "adult" talk is way
too high.
You might think "adults" would be clever enough to find topics of discussion
that are suitable for younger Pratchett fans to join in, or at least read,
without (in some cases) blushing or (in other cases, perhaps) having to
hide the screen from their mothers.
But you'd be wrong.
--
Richard Heathfield
"Usenet is a strange place" - dmr 29/7/1999
http://www.cpax.org.uk
email: rjh at above domain (but drop the www, obviously)
|
|
|
| Re: (I) Re: semi- {R} Introduction and general rant. [message #275272 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 09:11 |
|
redtiger <redtigeriiSPAM [at] iinet.net.au> wrote:
> "Anastasia" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:VI8fg.7180$921.4403 [at] newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> > René wrote:
> >
> >> 57 results for orgasms (just _one_ doesn't count as sex)
> >
> > Sure it does!
> >
>
> Stacie talking about 57 and orgasms.
> You know we're going to have to put a gag order on that don't you.
This is my thirty foot pole[1] of +5 against barges.
This is me not touching that statement with said pole.
--
'q
[1] This footnote intentionally left blank.
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275277 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 10:42 |
|
treesy wrote:
> Puck wrote:
>> Hello and nice to meetcha. Pull up a chair and call the cat a wossname.
>>
> will do.
>> If this is a sex group then the female posters have seriously been holding
>> out on me. ::ducks::
>>
>> I'd say that very few of the threads ever go above a pg-13 rating. How does
>> your school decide what's smut and what's not? Do they scan for certain
>> words? Because if hedgehog, chocolate, spider and Terry Pratchett are common
>> terms on sex groups then the internet is even more twisted and bizarre than
>> I had imagined.
>> --
> You're probably right, or at least, that's the conclusion that I came
> to.
> As for hedgehogs on sex groups, maybe they have been reading Pratchett.
>
> treesy.
>
Nah, if they'd read Pratchett they would know " The Hedghog can never be
buggered at all."
Welcome,have some choccies. How many austalian afp'ers is that now?
n
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275278 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 10:46 |
|
treesy wrote:
> 1. Introduction.
> Hi, I'm Michael Trees. I'm 17 and a (obviously) big fan of Pratchett's
> works (hands around some chocolates to foster good favour). I live on
> the north coast of NSW in Australia. I've been lurking here for a fair
> while, and finally got the guts to start my own topic.
>
Hello and welcome. Its always nice when a lurker comes out from behind
the door.
> 2. Rant
> The main thing that spurned me to write this is our public school
> censors. Their job is to block innapropriate sites from school networks
> in schools (which I agree with), however, I have cause to think that
> they may be a little heavy handed.
>
> Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school, only to
> find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group". This, naturally,
> has caused much confusion on my part, as I'd been following afp from
> school for over a year before this.
What is it blocking access to? If you're a google groups user it could
be that you are being blocked for the whole of google groups -
including adult and none-adult groups alike.... and if you're not a
google groups user then maybe you could give it a go.
Incidently... if this group wasn't an adult one, the other posts in
this thread will certainly make it so. So many rude words! Tut!
Rob
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Afp content (was: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant.) [message #275279 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 11:00 |
|
Richard Heathfield wrote:
>
> We also have at least one regular here who does not consider himself a
> "fundie", who would love to be able to allow his Pratchett-reading
> children to read afp, but can't because the level of so-called
> "adult" talk is way too high.
I'll skip the rethoric about "adult" talk being about war, work,
politics and taxes and assume you mean references to sex and sexuality
here.
> You might think "adults" would be clever enough to find topics of
> discussion that are suitable for younger Pratchett fans to join in,
> or at least read, without (in some cases) blushing or (in other
> cases, perhaps) having to hide the screen from their mothers.
Well, we do have topics like that, too. Spiders, self-esteem,
Washington gun-shots, Eurovision, Dr Who, longevity in fiction,
existence of soul or absolute morals, Shakespeare, Buffy, bread and
beer...
> But you'd be wrong.
No, you wouldn't. I think the problem isn't the topics, in and of
themselves, but a culture, if you will, where sexual innuendo and hints
are if not the norm then at least rather common and seen to be accepted
(and in some cases encouraged).
There are, I believe, a fair few adult afpers who would agree, as they
find things like that embarrassing or simply uninteresting.
But how much of a problem is it, really? How many of the sexual
references will get noticed by younger readers? I speak here as someone
who in places put on sexual references with a trowel in a piece of
afposted fiction, but wasn't concerned about letting my then eleven year
old (and somewhat prudeish) daughter read it, comfortable with the
knowledge that she wouldn't notice them.
And some of those sections made grown-up afpers blush.
A lot of innuendo is in the eye of the beholder. If it's well done, you
as the reader are the only one providing the sexual references, as the
text stands on its own without them.
Would that be a problem with younger readers, do you think?
Can younger readers read Guards! Guards! or Maskerade or Monstrous
Regiment?
Prepubertal kids simply don't see those hints, because they don't think
that way. Postpubertal may or may not, but a requirement for that would
be a knowledge of the things involved. For the biological bits we are
equipped with, and their function, I hope they have knowledge, and yes,
they may catch references to those. Same thing with courtship rituals
and so on.
For the more specialised areas, with special interests in certain
materials or toys and so forth, the kids would have to know about them
already.
I take your point, and I actually agree with you to some extent. There
are many references to sex and sexual fetishes here, and more often than
not I don't find them amusing. There is a lot of flirting going on,
from time to time, and to me that's largely nul-content posts, too.
But there's not much sex, as such. There are lots of hints at sex, and
we could do with a lot less of that IMNSHO, but unless you put the
actual sex in there when you read them, they are either completely
innocent or incomprehensible. And there are plenty of posts that are
just plain incomprehensible anyway, unfortunatley. Or maybe I'm just
not getting the sexual references in those.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275285 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 11:17 |
|
From the Collected Witterings of Anastasia, volume 23:
> René wrote:
>
>> 57 results for orgasms (just _one_ doesn't count as sex)
>
> Sure it does!
Hanes 57 Varieties?
--
If life gives you lemmings, jump off a cliff.
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Varieties (was: Introduction and general rant.) [message #275286 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 11:36 |
|
David Chapman wrote:
> From the Collected Witterings of Anastasia, volume 23:
>> René wrote:
>>
>>> 57 results for orgasms (just _one_ doesn't count as sex)
>>
>> Sure it does!
>
> Hanes 57 Varieties?
Oh, I know that one. First there's nothing, then there's nothing, then
you give it a smack on the bottom and you get it all at once.
If I had a penny for every meal that's been ruined by a Heinz bottle of
ketchup, I'd have enough to buy me another meal.
Orjan
--
The Tale of Westala and Villtin
http://tale.cunobaros.com/
Fiction, Thoughts and Software
http://www.cunobaros.com/
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275304 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 13:28 |
|
treesy wrote:
> 1. Introduction.
> Hi, I'm Michael Trees. I'm 17 and a (obviously) big fan of Pratchett's
> works (hands around some chocolates to foster good favour). I live on
> the north coast of NSW in Australia. I've been lurking here for a fair
> while, and finally got the guts to start my own topic.
>
> 2. Rant
> The main thing that spurned me to write this is our public school
> censors. Their job is to block innapropriate sites from school networks
> in schools (which I agree with), however, I have cause to think that
> they may be a little heavy handed.
>
> Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school, only to
> find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group". This, naturally,
> has caused much confusion on my part, as I'd been following afp from
> school for over a year before this.
It's all Stacie's fault. All on her own. Shares in cold showers have
gone up three hundred and eighty-seven points.
|
|
|
| Re: (I) Re: semi- {R} Introduction and general rant. [message #275305 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 13:31 |
|
redtiger wrote:
> "Anastasia" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>René wrote:
>>
>>>57 results for orgasms (just _one_ doesn't count as sex)
>>
>>Sure it does!
>
> Stacie talking about 57 and orgasms.
> You know we're going to have to put a gag order on that don't you.
Paging Graham...
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275306 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 13:32 |
|
SeekUp wrote:
> "treesy" <treesy2 [at] hotmail.com> wrote
>
>
>>Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school, only to
>>find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group". This, naturally,
>>has caused much confusion on my part, as I'd been following afp from
>>school for over a year before this.
>
>
>
> Hi, welcome. Just to add that sometimes the description of a newsgroup is
> bizarre, or else someone's idea of a joke. Google Groups has:
> alt.fan.sting
> Description: See alt.sex.bestiality.with-bees
> (Ok, ok, I confess, I *was* a fan, but well on the way to recovery.)
>
> Maybe you need to invite your IT people to browse afp and unblock it. Or
> maybe not.
We could promise to use only nice words for a couple of days. And hope
they've got a short timeout on their servers.
|
|
|
| Re: completely .[I] Introduction and general rant. [message #275313 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 13:50 |
|
Anastasia wrote:
> Ren=E9 wrote:
>
> > 57 results for orgasms (just _one_ doesn't count as sex)
>=20
> Sure it does!
Just listen to the expert, Ren=E9... ;-)
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275329 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 14:26 |
|
On Tue, 30 May 2006 22:38:10 -0400, Puck
<Kormos.4 [at] osu.edu> wrote:
<snip>
>Because if hedgehog, chocolate, spider and Terry Pratchett are common
>terms on sex groups then the internet is even more twisted and bizarre than
>I had imagined.
You need to turn your imagination up a notch then 8-)
--
Andy Brown
In 1665 Issac Newton became discouraged when he fell up a flight of
stairs.
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275335 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 15:21 |
|
The time: 31 May 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com>
> René <Kar98 [at] The-Coalition.US> wrote:
>>
>> I find your search terms a little unsettling.
>>
> [...]
>> 7 results for vestigial virgins
>
> Hah! Any fule knows there should be 16!
24, surely? (I'm an Invernesian...)
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275336 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 15:23 |
|
Daibhid Ceanaideach wrote:
> The time: 31 May 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
> speaker: "Arthur Hagen" <art [at] broomstick.com>
>
>> René <Kar98 [at] The-Coalition.US> wrote:
>>>
>>> I find your search terms a little unsettling.
>>>
>> [...]
>>> 7 results for vestigial virgins
>>
>> Hah! Any fule knows there should be 16!
>
> 24, surely? (I'm an Invernesian...)
As in ...
"I counted them all out and I counted none back in"
........?
--
Ed.
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275337 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 15:31 |
|
The time: 31 May 2006. The place: alt.fan.pratchett. The
speaker: René <Kar98 [at] The-Coalition.US>
> On 2006-05-30 22:03:16 -0500, "Arthur Hagen"
> <art [at] broomstick.com> said:
>
>> Puck <Kormos.4 [at] osu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>> I'd say that very few of the threads ever go above a
>>> pg-13 rating. How does your school decide what's smut and
>>> what's not? Do they scan for certain words? Because if
>>> hedgehog, chocolate, spider and Terry Pratchett are
>>> common terms on sex groups then the internet is even
>>> more twisted and bizarre than I had imagined.
>>
>> A quick google shows:
>>
>> shit: 1980 occurrences on a.f.p.
>> piss: 980
>> fuck: 918
>> cunt: 52
>> cocksucker: 3
>> motherfucker: 17
>> tits/teats: 153
>
> I find your search terms a little unsettling.
>
> 9,660 results for sex
> 1,180 results for naked
> 127 results for intercourse
> 65 results for boobs
> 57 results for orgasms (just _one_ doesn't count as sex)
> 7 results for vestigial virgins
>
> Remember? The phrase was "sex groups"?
>
7,700 results for "merkin"...
--
Dave
Official Absentee of EU Skiffeysoc
http://www.eusa.ed.ac.uk/societies/sesoc
Suggs against sexism. It's Madness gone
politically correct.
Jon Holmes, The Now Show 26/5/06
|
|
|
| Re: completely .[I] Introduction and general rant. [message #275340 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 15:47 |
|
On 2006-05-31 06:50:59 -0500, "E.S." <eero.suoranta [at] jtoy.inet.fi> said:
> Anastasia wrote:
>
>> René wrote:
>>
>>> 57 results for orgasms (just _one_ doesn't count as sex)
>>
>> Sure it does!
>
> Just listen to the expert, René... ;-)
Listening? I'm taking freaking notes here :D
--
Dig a moat the length of the Mexican border. Take the dirt, raise the
levees in New Orleans, and put the Florida alligators in the moat.
Are there any other problems you would like for me to solve?
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Afp content [message #275350 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 16:36 |
|
Orjan Westin posted:
> Richard Heathfield wrote:
....
>> You might think "adults" would be clever enough to find
>> topics of discussion that are suitable for younger
>> Pratchett fans to join in, or at least read, without (in
>> some cases) blushing or (in other cases, perhaps) having
>> to hide the screen from their mothers.
>
> Well, we do have topics like that, too. Spiders,
> self-esteem, Washington gun-shots, Eurovision, Dr Who,
> longevity in fiction, existence of soul or absolute morals,
> Shakespeare, Buffy, bread and beer...
>
Weelll. The discussion of course at least partially goes then
to the question of how inclusive a group (in the technical
usenet usage) this is supposed to be.
OTOH content is of course entirely up to the active
participants, and since by definition only our content
happens, we have voted (in some sense or other). Apparently
this includes at least "semi-adult" content including (very)
mild bdsm.
OTOH since nobody knows what the lurkers, let alone potential
lurkers, really want, or don't want for that matter, they are
fairly easy to dismiss.
OTGH we do seem to be just below the threshold of a new
"temple" or similar centred around "Stacie-dom" [1] and all variations
thereof.
I see it as a phase of happy navel gazing, a reaction to the
few *big* threads we had over the last few months.
>> But you'd be wrong.
>
> No, you wouldn't. I think the problem isn't the topics, in
> and of themselves, but a culture, if you will, where sexual
> innuendo and hints are if not the norm then at least rather
> common and seen to be accepted (and in some cases
> encouraged).
>
....
> I take your point, and I actually agree with you to some
> extent. There are many references to sex and sexual
> fetishes here, and more often than not I don't find them
> amusing. There is a lot of flirting going on, from time to
> time, and to me that's largely nul-content posts, too.
>
> But there's not much sex, as such. There are lots of hints
> at sex, and we could do with a lot less of that IMNSHO, but
> unless you put the actual sex in there when you read them,
> they are either completely innocent or incomprehensible.
> And there are plenty of posts that are just plain
> incomprehensible anyway, unfortunatley. Or maybe I'm just
> not getting the sexual references in those.
Unfortunately (or otherwise perhaps) the navel gazing takes
the form of "flirting", both with certain people and with
certain practices, so much so, that the convention now seems
to be to put (very) mild bdsm in.
So we have to ask ourselves, ok don't have to, but at least
could, if we could up the content, and move off "stacie-dom",
slightly.
[1] which doesn't have all that much to do with Stacie anyway [2]
[2] but in a certain light Stacie seems to have become the sex dream of
choice hereabouts [3]
[3] to the point that Stacie herself almost can't start a serious thread
anymore (see self esteem)
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<Mine Horn Is Exalted In Om>
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Afp content [message #275363 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 17:40 |
|
Thomas Zahr wrote:
> ...
>
> So we have to ask ourselves, ok don't have to, but at least
> could, if we could up the content, and move off "stacie-dom",
> slightly.
Erm... is this something I missed?
--
Dom
afpSlave to CCA
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Afp content [message #275367 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 17:53 |
|
Dom posted:
> Thomas Zahr wrote:
>> ...
>>
>> So we have to ask ourselves, ok don't have to, but at
>> least could, if we could up the content, and move off
>> "stacie-dom", slightly.
>
> Erm... is this something I missed?
>
Well, I don't know. You tell me. What do you feel, when you
say missed? Is it something you can share with the group?
No?
Ok.
What I meant was: Too many posts concerned with flirting,
preening and making jokes about how many boots an arachnoid
would wear and if they come in big enough sizes to stamp on
arachnophobes (I may have this the wrong way round), and to
few posts that provide something meaty, to get the teeth of
your intellect into.
On the positive side, traffic here is *way* up.
--
Ciao
Thomas =:-)
<If god is omnipotent, why create monday to friday?>
|
|
|
| Re: [I] Afp content [message #275368 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 18:10 |
|
On 2006-05-31 10:53:49 -0500, Thomas Zahr <ThomasZahr0604 [at] geekmail.de> said:
> What I meant was: Too many posts concerned with flirting,
> preening and making jokes about how many boots an arachnoid
> would wear and if they come in big enough sizes to stamp on
> arachnophobes (I may have this the wrong way round), and to
> few posts that provide something meaty, to get the teeth of
> your intellect into.
I could post my neighbor's recipe for twelve-fireant-chili. Upping the
ant, so to speak.
--
The short answer is "Yes." The long answer is "No."
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275379 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 19:02 |
|
In article <km8fg.7170$921.2674 [at] newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net>,
"Anastasia" <house_damodred [at] yahoo.com> wrote:
>I can't help the people who can't hold up their end of the flirting.
If I could hold up my end, I wouldn't need to flirt!
(Eyethangyew)
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
Kaylee, go find that kid who's takin' a dirt-nap with Baby Jesus; we need
us a hood ornament.
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275380 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 19:02 |
|
In article <e5iviq$4ft$1 [at] charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>,
"Puck" <Kormos.4 [at] osu.edu> wrote:
>If this is a sex group then the female posters have seriously been holding
>out on me. ::ducks::
There we are, people: encouraging female posters to have sex with ducks.
Is this the kind of newsgroup I fought for in the war?
OK, so I actually fought in the *ward*.
Well, a nurse threw me out of a ward...
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
Dear Diary...today I was pompous and my sister was crazy.
|
|
|
| Re: semi- (R) Introduction and general rant. [message #275382 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 19:14 |
|
On 30 May 2006 17:43:26 -0700, in alt.fan.pratchett , "treesy"
<treesy2 [at] hotmail.com> in
<1149036206.888463.44980 [at] i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> wrote:
>1. Introduction.
>Hi, I'm Michael Trees. I'm 17 and a (obviously) big fan of Pratchett's
>works (hands around some chocolates to foster good favour). I live on
>the north coast of NSW in Australia. I've been lurking here for a fair
>while, and finally got the guts to start my own topic.
>
>2. Rant
>The main thing that spurned me to write this is our public school
>censors. Their job is to block innapropriate sites from school networks
>in schools (which I agree with), however, I have cause to think that
>they may be a little heavy handed.
>
>Why, because I recently attempted to log on to afp from school, only to
>find that it had been blocked as an "adult-sex group". This, naturally,
>has caused much confusion on my part, as I'd been following afp from
>school for over a year before this.
I hate to disappoint you so early in your life, but this is what adult
sex is like. As Bill Waterson pointed out, adult themes are things
like paying bills and taking responsibility. There is a good reason we
keep that from children.
>I will conclude my two sections now with hello, and Aaargh.
>
>treesy.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Afp content [message #275384 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 19:23 |
|
In article <Xns97D4A907439F3ThomasZahrfreenetde [at] ID-179574.user.uni-berlin.,
Thomas Zahr <ThomasZahr0604 [at] geekmail.de> wrote:
>OTGH we do seem to be just below the threshold of a new
>"temple" or similar centred around "Stacie-dom" [1] and all variations
>thereof.
It certainly sounds more likely than "Stacie-Sub"...
Oh, wait... that's the kind of thing you're talking about, isn't it?
Cat.
--
Jazz-Loving Soul Mate and Tolerable Frog to CCA
See, this is a sign of your tragic space dementia. All paranoid and
grouchy.
|
|
|
| Re: [M] Afp content [message #275387 ] |
Mi, 31 Mai 2006 19:49 |
|
On Wed, 31 May 2006, The Stainless Steel Cat wrote:
> In article <Xns97D4A907439F3ThomasZahrfreenetde [at] ID-179574.user.uni-berlin.,
> Thomas Zahr <ThomasZahr0604 [at] geekmail.de> wrote:
>
> >OTGH we do seem to be just below the threshold of a new
> >"temple" or similar centred around "Stacie-dom" [1] and all variations
> >thereof.
>
> It certainly sounds more likely than "Stacie-Sub"...
>
> Oh, wait... that's the kind of thing you're talking about, isn't it?
>
It leaves me feeling a bit awkward occasionally - I tend to avoid it and
sometimes end up emailing Stacie the pun instead (those paying attention
will've worked out we talk more off-group than on). Thing is, I know I'm
flirting, it's just that the group as a whole doesn't need to pile in on
it...
--
flippa [at] flippac.org
Ivanova is always right.
I will listen to Ivanova.
I will not ignore Ivanova's recomendations.
Ivanova is God.
And, if this ever happens again, Ivanova will personally rip your lungs out!
|
|
|
Gehe zu:
aktuelle Zeit: Do Feb 9 01:16:26 CET 2012
Insgesamt benötigte Zeit, um die Seite zu erzeugen: 0,43946 Sekunden |
