Atom club forum demands I change my username

**MadMaxAtom** · April 19, 2011, 07:05 AM

When Gage received heat from the "Atom Club"forum about directing people to this website,I changed my username to .www.arielatomchat.com.

They did not find it amusing,and demanded I change it!!

So I did..to bitemyhairyass....and that was not acceptable....

....so I am now the "unwelcome guest"....

Glad to have an alternative site for Atom owners....

**bolus** · April 19, 2011, 07:11 AM

we had a feeling it was you

**MadMaxAtom** · April 19, 2011, 07:22 AM

They really have such a dry sense of humor over there...

**Norm** · April 19, 2011, 08:15 AM

LMAO!! that was funny. You are "Unwelcome Guest" but are still listed as "No longer a registered user"

**DarthChicken** · April 19, 2011, 12:46 PM

We welcome all types of people here, including those with a sense of humor.

**Gage** · April 19, 2011, 02:36 PM

ROFL ROFL

**Kim** · April 20, 2011, 11:15 AM

Seems that the Atom Club Forum is unhappy with me as well. I posted the following, which I thought was a reasonably supportive post:

As Gage so diplomatically wrote, the two sites compliment one another with neither posing a risk to the others future. For Atom owners, it's great to have both.

Having only been a member of Ariel Atom Chat board for a brief period, one of the distinguishing characteristics I've notice is the more laissez faire attitude towards modifications to the Atom. Chat members are posting elaborate plans and details on changes to everything from the engine to the instrumentation to the car's aerodynamics – and with very few knee-jerk, hyper-sensitive, flaming posts telling them what wankers they are for messing with an already perfect car.

Kind of refreshing ...

Unfortunately, that post set off a series of public and private communications asking me to behave - especially in my use of the word "wanker". Who would have thought our Brit compatriots were so ... priggish? I feel badly now and regret not using the word "tosser" instead.

**Norm** · April 20, 2011, 11:27 AM

They are a might bit punchy over there even though it was some of the English guys that started all of this. Whatever this is, that is. I saw your post and thought nothing of it, then the two or three after you came, and they don't think they are part of the problem ...

**Kim** · April 20, 2011, 12:28 PM

Originally Posted by Norm

They are a might bit punchy over there even though it was some of the English guys that started all of this. Whatever this is, that is. I saw your post and thought nothing of it, then the two or three after you came, and they don't think they are part of the problem ...

You're right, Norm. Having given it more thought, I just posted this reply:

_________________________________________________

[color=#0040FF]Quote from: Tom on 16 April 2011, 16:26:55
Quote from: kepetersen on 16 April 2011, 12:00:52
and with very few knee-jerk, hyper-sensitive, flaming posts telling them what wankers they are for messing with an already perfect car.

Kim a civil tongue - please? There's just no need for it.

_________________________________________________

Quote from: Steve on 16 April 2011, 17:25:28
Quote from: kepetersen on 16 April 2011, 12:00:52
'what wankers they are'

a bit unnecessary - I think

_________________________________________________
Quote from: Kim on 20 April 2011, 15:15:00

Sorry for missing your comments, but I've been traveling.

I must admit to being perplexed by your indignations regarding my use of the word "wanker". Curious as to whether this was further evidence of cross-cultural misunderstanding on the Atom Club Forum, I consulted my old standby on matters like this, Mike Etherington's The Very Best of British: The American's Guide to Speaking British. An essential resource for Americans on this forum, Dr. Etherington wrote that, "In modern usage it is usually a general insult. It conveys contempt, not commentary on sexual habits. Wanker has similar meanings and overtones to American pejoratives like jerk(-off)." He also said that, "One connotation (of the word 'wanker' is) implying egotistical and self-indulgent behaviour and is more analogous to (the) American 'douchebag'". Note how he spells "behaviour" - you can't get anymore authentic than that! This guy is clearly an expert.

However, not satisfied given the gravity of my apparent insult, I turned to Frederick Ludowyk's seminal work Anatomy of Swearing - sitting as it does on my bedroom dresser next to my King James Bible - who confirmed that the aforementioned is also the dominant meaning of the word "wanker" in Australia and New Zealand. Leave it to our Aussie and Kiwi friends to know what's what in these matters, I always say.

Granted, I apparently underestimated the priggishness of those of our British Atom Club Forum colleagues who share a passionate, if not ecclesiastical, desire to keep these pages cleansed of pejoratives. But I worry how they survive in day-to-day human intercourse (no, not that kind); for example, the BBC describes "wanker" as only 'moderately offensive' and allows its use on television programs. That being the case, do we really want this forum to be more sterile than that being uttered by David Attenborough on the evening's tellie?

And what of the rest of the Commonwealth? Going back to Australia, "wanker" is considered only mildly offensive yet is widely accepted and used in the media, according to Karen Stollznow's 2004 best seller on the subject, Whinger! Wowser! Wanker! Aussie English: Deprecatory Language and the Australian Ethos. And in Canada, the term "wanker" has on several occasions been used during the opening benediction of parliament. (Okay, this last part isn't true, but that's not to say it won't happen some day.)

All that said, and despite the demonstrably mild if not benign level of insult associated with the word "wanker", in the spirit of cordiality and hands-across-the-seas collegiality, I will refrain in the future from using that word.

Instead I will use "tosser".