Bad *** language filter

[gbrandwood]

Originally Posted by Timezkware Tim

It would be great if this site also had a sniper filter. Whenever someone with no guts wants to take pot shots at a poster without naming them in the post, the post should be automatically deleted.

I guess it would be better if the snipe was never made to begin with (named or otherwise). But its so easy to snipe from behind a keyboard and even easier to misread something. But we all seem to do pretty well on here. Most of the time

[KSagal]

I'll play devil's advocate (Surrogate in some people's view) here and say that the snipe issue is largely a perspectives issue...

My own memory is that which is somewhat pictographic... I am great at remembering faces, but not so good at matching them up with the names... I am good at remembering turns of phrase, or specific words spoken, but not as good at properly attributing the author...

I have been accused, on more than one occasion, of singling out a paticular person in a post which specifically did not name them, or had a disclaimer about it being responsive to several posters... I have even had people send long diatribes about how I was picking on them or their words, when I was not even aware of their existance.

One thing here, that is fairly common, is an inflated sense of self importance. That shows well in many posts. (And surely I am not exempt)

So, a snipe filter would be hard pressed to work. I agree with the concept that policing ourselves will work well, and for those who don't police themselves, their posts will stand out as exceptions and will garner the respect they deserve...

As far as the original topic of a bad language filter, I have included the astericks myself, if I am quoting another person who used profanities. I did not wait for a filter to do it... I take my cue here from Beatle Bailey, who was famous for the "$#OO*" kind of swear...

[pam]

From my history <G> We've always had a bad language filter, because we've had posters of all ages at various times. We even had a filter on Schnitz that filtered out references to other things that Frank chose not to have on the forum. I'm pretty sure that this software is using a default group of words (I haven't been through it to look) -
Pam

[macgeek]

Its really ******* hard not to swear, When I get up in the ******* morning and scratch my ***** and then go take a ****,
I think WHAT THE **** am I doing today.

Then I get out into traffic on my segway and God are there alot of ******** on the road,

This one guy cut me off and I said to him *** * *** ** ** ******* **** ** ****** **** ***** **** ** ***!!!

Well what the ***** would you do?

Jonathan

[citivolus]

Jonathan,
I don't mean to be pedantic but... I think "****" is the wrong word since it is being modified by "*****" and therefore it should be "*******".
But then I've always had a problem with the past tense of a pluperfect participle myself.

[macgeek]

******* A
******* B
******* C

yea thats how a NYker Spells!

you got a ******** problem with DHAT?????


Jonathan
I * NY

PS: tree plus three plus tree is Nine
Dirty tree plus dirty tree plus dirty tree is ninty nine!

[guyler]

I read books, watch movies, and indulge in conversations decorated with a wide range of obscenities/vulgarities and it doesn't bother me. However, there are venues where a more refined version of the English language is preferred. In my opinion this forum is one of them.

Where I part company with the administrators of this forum is with the substitution of asterisks (*) for the letters of an obscene/vulgar word. If the word itself is obvious--in spite of the substitution--from the context of the sentence, what is the point? Generally the word literally jumps off the page and can be heard in the mind. It is not the printing of the word that offends me. It is the meaning.

I suggest the any post with a proscribed word be sent back to the author for correction before publication. The use of asterisks is childish and does not purify the post.

If you don't agree with me, **** you!

[[email protected]]

I've been doing IT stuff for close to 50 years! In some circles, I'm considered somewhat of an expert on office automation (including things like email, "bulletin boards", etc.).

In my professional opinion, there are only three major "drawbacks" to automatic language (or content) filters:

1. Use of such filters leads to occasional "discussions" such as this, which will inevitably contain content that may be viewed as creative, or childish, or angry, or .....

2. In some less-polite climates, participants may become creative in using obscure language, or other work-arounds, to incorporate "bad language" in their communications. Or perhaps just "foreign language" depending on the depth of the filters. Hopefully, that won't occur here.

3. A legitimate argument can be made that, in fairness, participants deserve access to a list of all the prohibited words. The argument is that participants should be given the opportunity to NOT stumble into the use of prohibited words (or content). Of course, there's an obvious problem doing that.

So, like many things, there's no "right" answer.

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted by guyler

Where I part company with the administrators of this forum is with the substitution of asterisks (*) for the letters of an obscene/vulgar word. If the word itself is obvious--in spite of the substitution--from the context of the sentence, what is the point? Generally the word literally jumps off the page and can be heard in the mind. It is not the printing of the word that offends me. It is the meaning.

I suggest the any post with a proscribed word be sent back to the author for correction before publication. The use of asterisks is childish and does not purify the post.

What would you consider an acceptable correction for my previous posting that said, when I was QUOTING spoken material on the Segway Safety Video?

"If you ignore the guidelines and warnings, well - it's your ***!"

[gbrandwood]

Guyler & Dale,

Your posts contain points that I've never considered before and I've been in front of messageboards (and behind them) for years. I'm glad I started this thread.

Cheers, guys.