Moderation Questions
The last iteration of the moderation discussion thread was a complete disaster. Numerous attempts to keep it on topic fa
Whatever you want to say about lagtight it is objectively hilarious he spent his Saturday night on the politics subforum of a poker forum hitting refresh til he was unbanned and went on a multipost spree
He created a new account because he could not wait. He made a few posts in RGT. Of course he denies it, but in the most 'guy incognito' way possible....
I always thought it was chomping. Not sure I've ever heard champing.
Largest corpora of contemporary American English usage confirms that chomping is used almost twice as much.
I’m sure more people say “Anyways,” rather than “Anyway,” as well. People are morons.
Deep
Just popped in to say the correct word is "chomping".
Chomp is a 17th-century variant of the Middle English champ, both of course being imitative or onomatopoeic. But things to do with horses have a particular vocabulary, and I'm afraid horses champ. They champ at the bit. They don't chomp. American comic-strip characters chomp when eating greedily, or used to. But horses don't.
Chomp is right but champ is more right
He created a new account because he could not wait. He made a few posts in RGT. Of course he denies it, but in the most 'guy incognito' way possible....
Just visited RGT to see who you were talking about.
Wurlitzer seems like a smart guy.
He's Roman Catholic, which I am not.
And by his own testimony, he has only been a Christian for a relatively short period of time. I've been a believer for 37 years.
If I was to create an alt over there, I wouldn't represent myself as either a Catholic or a recent convert.
addendum: If you're concerned, you can ask a moderator to compare our ISP's.
How are you settling back in, Chuck?
lmao, Chuck kicking and screaming because his new alt was found out so easily.....
You are missing my point. Let's assume the bolded is true. (It obviously is true that expressing views about women that would have been entirely mainstream in the 14th century would get you banned now.) That doesn't make it hard to avoid bans. You don't have to post your every thought on this forum. If you can't say what you believe about gay people on this subforum withou
Should it be ok to say we don't want anyone who has 14th century views on women allowed to be here?
I'm not sure I've ever heard anyone say "at the bit", but from reading the phrase I've always thought it was "champing", and I know that was the original use of the phrase. Since that word has ceased to be used apart from in that phrase, I guess people have been using "chomping" more recently.
I don't know why anyone would want to continue the use of the phrase at all, as most people also don't know what a "bit" is, and the phrase evokes nothing in particular unless one is pretty familiar with horse racing.
But I don't think horses chomp unless they're eating something special like an apple.
My dog is missing several of her teeth, which may add to the chomp chomp sound she sometimes makes when she eats. I didn't name her, but her name is Chompers.
Should it be ok to say we don't want anyone who has 14th century views on women allowed to be here?
That's a question for the site owners and the mods, I guess. You certainly could allow people to advocate for selling off daughters into marriage, decriminalization of marital rape, prohibiting women from owning property, etc.
More broadly, you could allow people to advocate for slavery, public torture, etc. None of those views would have been remarkable in the 14th century.
If 2+2 tacitly encouraged that sort of thing, I wouldn't continue to post here. But that's obviously a personal decision.
