|
butt
Jun 15, 2007 6:06:46 GMT -5
Post by michaelcbell on Jun 15, 2007 6:06:46 GMT -5
I think I know why, but it seems the censoring filter has gotten a little stronger lately. buttuming I am correct, it now censors unloveable character combinations even within the context of another word. In most cases, this works beautifully, except in the case of my good friend jack the donkey. Words like buttume, buttets, cutlbutt, clbutt, grbutt, etc are all very useful and normal words of the english language. (now I'm just seeing if it'll censor me) Please don't think I'm ripping on anyone; I actually think it's funny. Just Hobnobbing with Harbaugh (see, I'm putting my new knowledge to good use!)
-m
|
|
|
butt
Jun 15, 2007 6:19:58 GMT -5
Post by JohnH on Jun 15, 2007 6:19:58 GMT -5
Its a pain in the butt. I tried to describe an effect on the bass frequencies earlier today. I reckon its a virus
John
|
|
|
butt
Jun 15, 2007 7:33:00 GMT -5
Post by Runewalker on Jun 15, 2007 7:33:00 GMT -5
Assessing this assinine language assimilation and concluding through something less than an assize, that it does not assauge our unassuming associates ... and being assurred that this asseveration aggitates assorted assentients, should we not assay tactical challenges, and assemble assailants to assertively assault and assassinate this arbiter of assurance?
All associates who assent, assert yourselves, assign your assets, assemble your assault ordinance, grab you asses and sasshay to the assembly point at Assateague Island, to kick some assorted butt.
most assuredly yours RassW
============================
this post makes no sense if the butt filiter keeps cycling in and out, so here it the butt ugly in butt-0-vision:
Buttessing this buttinine language buttimilation and concluding through something less than an buttize, that it does not buttauge our unbuttuming buttociates ... and being butturred that this butteveration aggitates buttorted buttentients, should we not buttay tactical challenges, and buttemble buttailants to buttertively buttault and buttbuttinate this arbiter of butturance?
All buttociates who buttent, buttert yourselves, buttign your buttets, buttemble your buttault ordinance, grab you buttes and sbutthay to the buttembly point at Buttateague Island, to kick some buttorted butt.
most butturedly yours RbuttW
PS yes I know asinine is spelled without two ss', but if I did that you would not have buttinine.
|
|
|
butt
Jun 15, 2007 8:42:38 GMT -5
Post by michaelcbell on Jun 15, 2007 8:42:38 GMT -5
RW, you butt.
|
|
|
butt
Jun 15, 2007 15:42:43 GMT -5
Post by JohnH on Jun 15, 2007 15:42:43 GMT -5
Oo its gone. So what just happened?
John
|
|
|
butt
Jun 15, 2007 19:07:49 GMT -5
Post by michaelcbell on Jun 15, 2007 19:07:49 GMT -5
it's not gone on my original post, though...
|
|
|
butt
Jun 16, 2007 13:52:06 GMT -5
Post by sumgai on Jun 16, 2007 13:52:06 GMT -5
Boys and Girls, As it happens, I'll have to take the brickbats for this one....... sigh. I noted in a post a few days ago that "butt"hole got through the filter, without any help from any special BBCodes. I checked the filter, and sure enough, "butt"hole was on the list, and should have been knocked down to a percentage sign. Figuring that something was amiss, I "strengthened" the filter by unticking the checkbox "Whole words only". That worked........ for about 15 or 20 minutes. A few postings later, I saw what was happening, and corrected my error, going back and re-ticking that same checkbox. But as michael points out, once the post has been made, the filter does not work on it anymore. It would appear that once filtered, never bothered again. Quick and efficient, except that "butt"hole now gets through without any problems. That's the only word I've found so far that somehow escapes the filter trap, there are plenty of others that get hung out to dry. I did remove "damn" from the list, it's just so commonplace in today's world. However, even though I'm not religeous, I do feel that some folks might take offense at "gawddamn" when spelled properly, so I've allowed that filter to remain in place. In fact, some filters now merely dumb-down a low-key offender, instead of just a percent sign. If you do see "%", you can be sure that the emotion expressed was a strong one! ;D Why do I do all of this? Well, I"m no prude, to say the least. But I do honor RandomHero's original intent, and that is, this Forum should be Family Friendly. We do have some youngsters here, and no matter what my personal feelings may be, there's no reason to upset some parent who's looking over the shoulder of his 12-year-old as he scans guitar modification plans on the innerweb. Or at least this particular part of the innerweb. If I had some way of age verification, I might think about letting adult language run a bit more rampant, but as it is, I'm happy to let things stand as they are. And if you're feeling that you're a bit stifled in your expressiveness, then I invite you to read any of UnklMickey's posts where he occasionaly takes someone to task for good reason. See any percent signs in there? Nope. If unk can flay someone who deserves it without resorting to school-yard language, then I think we can all follow his example. [/Explanation of Policy #4] sumgai
|
|
|
butt
Jun 16, 2007 15:10:43 GMT -5
Post by UnklMickey on Jun 16, 2007 15:10:43 GMT -5
*Unk laughs and gets a devious look upon his face*
I agree that we should keep things relatively clean here. G-rated might be a bit puritanical, but for the most part PG-13 would seem appropriate.
I for one, think intent, rather than coarse language is more important, but you can't really filter out hate. I think intent is far worse.
There's a difference between saying something like "H*ll, I don't really give a d*mn. A b*stard file will take longer than a rasp, but I'd rather do it slowly." and "D*mn you all to H*ll you rotten b*stard!" You can't expect a filter to know the difference.
FWIW, language filters are no big deal anyway. I could say anything I want right now, and get completely past the filters. and I don't need quotation marks or any special characters like the asterisks I just used.
Sumgai, I'll be sending you a PM to show you just what I mean. Make sure your grandchildren aren't in the room when you open it.
cheers, Unk
|
|
|
butt
Jun 16, 2007 15:59:17 GMT -5
Post by sumgai on Jun 16, 2007 15:59:17 GMT -5
unk, I don't even need to check the PM box, I know what you mean. I also don't wanna spread the word so widely that the filters become useless. The way I figure it, if someone goes to the time and trouble to learn how, then they're much more likely to exercise restraint, and not very likely to act irrationally. Folks, Unk has it correct, these are word filters, not intent filters. Please post responsibly. Thanks. sumgai
|
|