Shall we start a 'chavs II' thread, or Beadle suggested 'Son of a chav'? I think that thread and other pulled threads have covered a lot of important and interesting issues. I mean, if stuff has to be censored, if certain comments are giving bad imporessions of WW or something, couldn't it be possible to just remove certain messages without removing the whole thread?

Dav, I think you should get a T-shirt made with that slogan on it: 'Don't be a cunt. Fight censorship.' It would be perfect.

Cath x

We only withdraw or put a halt to threads that have become simply abusive. The forum is for discussions about writing and writing -related subjects,- it's a site for writers after all!-and we don't feel there's any need for members to use abusive language to each other or to use the forum as a way of venting their anger. That's what chatrooms are for.

Yeah coz as writers we shouldn't really talk about or think about and - Heaven forbid - discuss other things.

That would just be wrong.

As far as I'm concerned, that attitude completely destroys what this site has (had?).

When I am writing my postings that you may consider use "...abusive language to each other or to use the forum as a way of venting their anger..." I am in fact working on my writing. It's not just an ego trip. Clearly that's what the people at the top think, so what's the point really, if everything you write is going to be removed because its not safe and nice.

I include swear words as they are as valid as any other word, just because some people can't deal with that doesn't mean it is a bad thing.

I think this site is in danger of losing its bollocks, if you'll kindly pardon the expression, and then it will become just another boring, normal website that won't really help anyone.

You give people an outlet to express themselves, not just write pretty little stories about whatever. It's about developing a personality within your writing, using the excellent advice of people like Mr Terry Edge (The Edgemeister) to develop your technique whilst striving to find that original voice. Postings on things that I am passionate about helps me develop that style.

You people would rather kill that and then everyone can just ego massage each other and discuss how great their writing is.

Dear lovely Anna, please don't take this as an attack on you, I don't mean it like that.

What happens on WW is up to you of course, and I respect that. You do whatever floats your boat, as they say.

I'll go and float mine.

Luv and Kisses

Sir David Skyflyer

Sir David has a point, you know. I agree totally, absolutely, that we (or most of us who speak!) come here to 'work on our writing'. Part of that pursuit, for me, is meeting writers like Sir David, the late lamented Insane Bartender, Anisoara, AlT (Adele), Silverelli (Adam), Jardinery (Jai), Colin-M ... oh get out of here JoPo, you can't name-check the whole crew ... and SPEAKING OUR MIND ... Just sometimes, by coincidence, in the minds of the organisers, this may look like a chatroom.

Respect to the organisers, though, because it is a fine line to tread, with a shower of litigious '****' on every corner. hey ho, tra la, I think I'm turning into a 'liberal humanist' so it's time to resume my medication programme. Bye for now.

Oh, Sir David, congratulations on your 'K'.

Joe

Why thank you Joe, I can get you one on the cheap if ya want.

As far as I'm concerned, a chatroom is one of those things which scroll along in realtime with loadsa of people with names like PINKstix889 chatting in real time about boring things, with people leaving and entering all the time.

This ain't no chatroom, and I find it insulting that people decide to interpret it like that just coz they don't want to get involved in a discussion, whether it be about censorship, war, how utterly fucked up the Yanks are or, yes, writing techniques.

Still, who the feck am I to question the WW gods that make the cyber-sun rise everyday, who bring the harvest of the forums and provide us the fruits of our stories...

I say ban Censorship...

It is interesting to note that whenever I mention “self-censorship” it gets very quiet. The reader sees the words, stops right there and walks away. This is censorship as well, and the worst kind, being an arrogant assumption that it is known what I am about to say without actually checking. Perhaps self-censorship should be renamed so the word “censorship” is no longer in it. Perhaps I should rename it “dumbing up”.
In fact, the no censorship call is equivalent to the emperor’s new clothes. We censor our work by being politically correct. We censor it by ensuring we don't offend any minorities. We censor it by abiding by the WW site rules on subject content, though these days we call it being civil and courteous and modern.
A comment about my stance in another thread stated that such as me did not dare to be “dangerous, disrespectful and discourteous” which is nice alliteration [and more arrogance], whereas self-censorship [continuing the alliteration] is about not sounding “dumb”.
My stance and complaint is nothing more than this:
As we explore taboo subjects, most writers will be coming at them from the outside. Consequentially, their risqué writing risks being received with hysterical laughter or cold contempt by those who have experienced it from the inside. I am doing nothing more than reiterating the old adage “write what you know”, and if you honestly don’t know about it, then go out there and do three or four shit-loads of research. Don’t do your taboo subjects a disservice by “dumbing them up”.

Reading through this forum shows the great divides between personal views and perhaps the standards that have formed a part of my career. What I find liberating is basis of each argument that is obviously founded in personal taste, the form of self censorship that has been mentioned. The law as is commonly said can be an ass, and what was built to protect can in certain cases hide. I would agree that I have a right to make personal choice, if I decide to read or watch something, as an adult I should have that choice. However in a world where you have to be a certain age to vote, drink and smoke we allow children to become parents and much worse. A can of worms indeed, with no clear answers. However if cases are to argued openly within the public eye a certain amount of descrection must be allowed, unless the debate is between two equally open partners. An opinion is an opinion; but an opinion on a matter or a person whom cannot answer is seen as slaunderous, even if the opinion is a good one. You can state facts, but in total non-personal way. This can be a minefield and the text involved is unlimited!!