[bksvol-discuss] Re: I have a question please and thank you.
- From: "Kim Friedman" <kimfri11@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: <bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 09 Sep 2009 20:28:04 -0700
True, Roger, very true. Still and all, you will grant me my point I hope?
Mind you, if you do plan to be consistent, think of the creativity involved
in coming up with words which will express your intense emotions when you
are stumped for words, but yet wishing to be consistent with your
non-belief. I figure if you don't think God exists, using God as an
expletive is not consistent with your non-belief. I haven't decided on this.
However I would appreciate your consistency if you can come up with
something or other, for I am not an atheist myself. (Don't worry, Roger, I'm
not going to stand up and testify in an email.) Take care and best regards,
Kim. P.S.: I want you to know that I like your thoughtful emails. K.
_____
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx
Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2009 4:32 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: I have a question please and thank you.
Well, Kim, as an atheist who has often used the word god in some of my oaths
I will have to agree with you that it is a bit amusing. The explanation is
that when I use such a word or phrase I am not really thinking in terms of
swearing an oath as is apparently the case when anyone else does it whether
they are a believer or not. It is, rather, an expletive. It is an expletive
that I have heard others utter all my life with no thought to literal
meanings, that is, no thought to literal meanings by either myself or the
utterers. I have just picked up those expletives along with everyone else.
If I give my words some thought and reflection I will avoid such religious
references. However, by the very nature of an expletive, the situations in
which expletives are usually uttered are not very conducive to thoughtful
reflection.
"The end
may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.
" Leon Trotsky
The Militant: http://www.themilitant.com
<http://wwww.themilitant.com> Pathfinder Press:
http://www.pathfinderpress.com
Granma International: http://granma.cu/ingles/index.html
_
table with 2 columns and 6 rows
Subj:
[bksvol-discuss] Re: I have a question please and thank you.
Date:
9/9/2009 3:36:52 AM Eastern Daylight Time
From:
kimfri11@xxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-to:
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To:
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent from the Internet
(Details)
table end
Hi, Roger, I tend not to like that particular word myself, but it was used
in common English speech in the 17th century and in fact, if you come across
the King James Version of the Bible, that word you used occurs throughout 1
and 2 Kings and 1 and 2 Chronicles. I know what you are getting at and I
think
cultures differ on what they might consider obscene. I think what have been
considered oaths have changed. At some time if you said "God's body", that
would have been considered an oath. You are right in that people will say
what they say. Personally, I wouldn't swear by asking God to damn somebody
or
use the name of Jesus if I was particularly upset. I find it kind of amusing
when I hear of people who are atheists swearing and using God's name in
their oaths.
I think to myself: "Now here are these supposed atheists who will tell me
that believing in God is irrational because to their minds their is no such
thing,
and yet, they will swear by something they claim not to believe in. If they
really are atheists, why can't they come up with oaths that are at least
consistent
with their non-beliefs?" God knows, I don't claim to be consistent myself,
so I guess I'll have to cut you some slack here, right? However, I think if
you mean what you say and don't believe in God at all, I say, try to think
of something you can swear by, if you must swear by something, that is
consistent
with your beliefs or lack thereof. Regards, Kim.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
----
From: bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
[mailto:bksvol-discuss-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
Rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx
Sent: Tuesday, September 08, 2009 8:49 PM
To: bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [bksvol-discuss] Re: I have a question please and thank you.
Some time ago I recall Pavi saying that the dictionary that algorithm uses
was reviewed and that it was laughable when they saw some of the words that
were in it. Supposedly that was corrected, but I very much suspect that I
would still consider it laughable. Honestly, I was once telling someone
something
another person said. I mentioned that the person had said that another
person was pissed off. I do not ordinarily use that phrase myself, but since
I was
relating what someone else said I did that time. I was angrily accused of
being obscene. It never even occurred to me in my wildest speculations that
anyone
would consider that to be obscene and if I had found it in that dictionary
of prohibited words and phrases I would have found that laughable.
Nevertheless,
someone did consider it obscene. That is why I tend to think that the person
who is offended by so-called "adult" words has the problem, not the one who
utters them.
"The end
may justify the means as long as there is something that justifies the end.
" Leon Trotsky
The Militant:
http://www.themilitant.com
Pathfinder Press:
http://www.pathfinderpress.com
Granma International:
http://granma.cu/ingles/index.html
_
table with 2 columns and 6 rows
Subj:
[bksvol-discuss] Re: I have a question please and thank you.
Date:
9/8/2009 10:48:03 PM Eastern Daylight Time
From:
cherryjam@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Reply-to:
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
To:
bksvol-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Sent from the Internet
(Details)
table end
Evan, I've wondered about how that algorithm works too, because
of the children's books I've proofed that were erroneously marked
as adult by the algorithm. I'd bet part of it is based on
Bookshare useing a dictionary of words that can be considered
adult (with some contexting built in, I'd guess). The final
designation of adult comes about by using a weighting of the
number of times words/terms/phrases appear factored against the
total number of words in a book. So if you have a children's
book with very few words, and one of the 'suspect' words appears,
although it could be in a totally innocent context, bam! The
children's book is going to get rated as adult. I had that
happen a few months ago with a board book I was proofreading!
Just guessing here, of course. smile.
Judy s.
EVAN REESE wrote:
> What determines adult content is ultimately the proofreader. Bookshare's
> computer can mark a book either Adult or not, using some secret
> algorithm that staff refuses to divulge to us, but the proofreader can
> change the Bookshare computer's choice if he/she feels that a change is
> justified. It used to be either the submitter and/or the proofreader,
> but Bookshare took that choice away from submitters and seems to have no
> inclination to give it back.
To unsubscribe from this list send a blank Email to
bksvol-discuss-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
put the word 'unsubscribe' by itself in the subject line. To get a list of
available commands, put the word 'help' by itself in the subject line.
__________ Information from ESET NOD32 Antivirus, version of virus signature
database 4408 (20090908) __________
The message was checked by ESET NOD32 Antivirus.
http://www.eset.com
Other related posts:
