h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

Puir is standard Scots...

But that is probably outwith the house rules too. Which is another standard Scottish usage.

Maybe this looks like futtering around to you, Mark, but you are the high heid yin and you need to keep a canny heid on your shoulders.

We are not blethering for the sake of it. (Actually of course we are - that is the point of the site after all).

This is not a situation in which we can say dinna fash yesel'. I think you probably need to fash yesel' on this one, since a lot of the community are sair aggrieved on this.

B

'aad' is a variant of 'auld' ... a.dial.[mod. Sc. and north Eng., f. OE ald = OLD

That's from my 40 year old OED. Admittedly it's not what one would call 'concise' but it definitely says OED in gold lettering on the leather cover......

Ah, I didn't want examples of non-English BBC sites, I wanted examples of Moderators removing links to them. Our policy has always been to allow links to BBC sites, even when we didn't allow URLs in Postings.

Sorry, I thought you were complaining that the Mods had been removing non-English BBC links. Is this the case?

If not, I don't need to tell them, as they already know.

"We are not blethering for the sake of it. (Actually of course we are - that is the point of the site after all)."

Of course you are.

Time to go home for me...

Although I don't have a colloquial phonetic dictionary, I do have a Scots one published by Chambers.

There are several standard (ie non-jokey) Scots-English dictionaries available.

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0550118551/qid=1025028158/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_0_4/026-9859087-8845240 which is the one that I have is not currently available either in hardback or paperback so I agree that it is therefore not much use

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1902930150/qid=1025028158/sr=1-9/ref=sr_1_0_9/026-9859087-8845240 is on CD Rom, and seems to be available on 6 weeks delivery

http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0007101341/qid=1025028158/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_0_1/026-9859087-8845240 is published by Collins and has nearly 1800 words.....

B

>> "We are not blethering for the sake of it.
>> (Actually of course we are - that is the point of the site after all)."

> Of course you are.

So can we blether in dialect or not?

B

Thanks for the explanations, Eds! I'd like version #3 with a switch to #4 ASAP.



Posted 1 Hour Ago by Mark Moxon
Post: 339

It says: "If the BBC wanted to introduce reactive moderation they would have to do so across *all* of their sites and boards at the same time..."

In other words, the BBC can't introduce reactive moderation to just h2g2 (ie unilateral reactive moderation), as then it would be deemed not to be taking appropriate care of those sites, when compared to the other actively moderated boards.

So it would leave the BBC open to being sued if they had only one site being reactively moderated, or, to put it more succintly, "unilateral reactive moderation is not legally possible".

Does that make sense now?




Hmmm, some, but not *really*, sorry. The BBC BBC Online Editorial Guidelines say that:
Any BBC Internet site on which the public places material must be moderated; this may involve premoderation or postmoderation.

If the BBC can choose whether to have one or the other I can't really see why they could not have pro- and re-actively moderated sites...






and as a re-post:

Ah... one small little matter... is that "no-posting-of-non-English"-rule part of the House Rules and will breaking that rule (repeatedly) get me an official warning and/or a week/lifetime ban?
Or is it just "BBC Editorial Policy" as stated in the Announcement?

Just curious, y'know...

Hear hear Ben.

Mark, I'm not some wild-eyed Northern separatist, I was born within the sound of Bow Bells.
I just feel you can't go round arbitrarily excluding words that are used daily in the majority of this country (geographically).

That is what was done to children in the past. They were taught at school that their own local speech was 'wrong' and only BBC English was correct.

I thought that was the reason for the BBC switching to presenters and newsreaders with regional accents. Was I mistaken?

As I said I did not have time to go through the backlog - I have to goto work !

Tube, you're confusing 'reactive moderation' with 'moderation', the latter coming in two flavours, pre- and post-. If that doesn't explain things, sorry, I am literally walking out of the office now. More tomorrow, if there's time...

Aye, lass, ye were that, see?

This is not owt about nowt, this is owt about owt.

Also born south of Watford, but a Geordie on one side, a Durhum alumna, married to a Scot, and living there for a while too...

B

"I just feel you can't go round arbitrarily excluding words that are used daily in the majority of this country (geographically)."

But I can't include them all - you can't expect us to train the Mods in all regional dialects, can you?

Think of it from our point of view. Think resources. Think about how people interpret content while moderating. I would dearly love to allow all dialects and languages on h2g2, but I have already explained why it's not possible. These arguments don't change the reasons for the rules, do they?

Ha'way Bonny Lass!

They do seem to have an extremely insular attitude don't they?

Mark, go home and get some rest!

So if I'd said I was just rabbiting on abaht nuffink the mods would have understood and not removed my post, but blether ( a perfectly valid ENGLISH word that predates , and that a well-read 11 year old Londoner would understand) isn't acceptable?

Have any of the postings that soley have 'blether' in been moderated.
A question of context, isn't it?
Used in the way you have above, it's understandable. Used in a three-four sentence posting in dialect, it *may* not even be 'blether' that's causing the problem, but the rest of it, no?

Yes, sweetie, because this is another instance of the sheer bloody parochialism of London. Estuary English is fine, but anything outside the M25 is too obscure....

B

Errr. What was Post 381?

Mark, I guess I understand the differnces.

The level of moderation is not the same all over the BBC, as they have pre- and post-moderation. This is obviously deemed "to be taking appropriate care of those sites". Even though the level of moderation is not the same.

Now, re- and pro-active moderation are different levels, too, as we agree.

I just felt .... anyway. Let's drop that as it would be getting too nit-picky.



Tube

Scots English (oxymoron eh?)