profanity filter again

Anything about use of this forum : NOT about cycling
User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 9936
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

profanity filter again

Postby 661-Pete » 8 Sep 2014, 9:37am

Sorry to bring this up again: I know it arouses passions! :roll:

From another thread:
his reactions were micturate poor


Did the poster really type that? Of course not. Just done a quick check, obviously what he really typed was a much more familiar 4-letter word beginning with 'p' which means the same thing.

I just want to say, some of the automatic swear-word substitutions, such as this one, are quite nonsensical and mystifying: and this one has the added disadvantage that it indicates at once what the original text typed in was. I don't want the CTC forum to end up peppered with profanities: I think we're all too adult to relish that sort of thing. But I think the filter should be tweaked so that it replaces the offending word with "****" rather than an absurd simile.

Can this be done?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

profpointy
Posts: 519
Joined: 9 Jun 2011, 10:34pm

Re: profanity filter again

Postby profpointy » 8 Sep 2014, 9:50am

well one problem is discussing bike saddles. When some says it causes buttock pain it substitutes **** so the reader then doesn't know whether the front or the back is being referred to. And the use of a standard anatomical word in context is not bad language in my book

beardy
Posts: 3382
Joined: 23 Feb 2010, 4:10pm

Re: profanity filter again

Postby beardy » 8 Sep 2014, 9:57am

I think that he did actually type that, in anticipation of the auto-filter censoring the more obvious choice.
It could lead us all to extending our vocabularies and choosing our words more thoughtfully.

I never had a problem with swearing but mindless swearing [annoys me].

User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 4948
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: profanity filter again

Postby Audax67 » 8 Sep 2014, 1:10pm

Hyphenation appears to confound the aforesaid engine, so that [whatever]-poor will escape its notice, no matter what [whatever] might be. Even the procreative expletive goes unsanctioned.
Have we got time for another cuppa?

Vorpal
Moderator
Posts: 18738
Joined: 19 Jan 2009, 3:34pm
Location: Not there ;)

Re: profanity filter again

Postby Vorpal » 8 Sep 2014, 2:21pm

The OP in this case typed the word 'micturate' to avoid the profanity filter.
“In some ways, it is easier to be a dissident, for then one is without responsibility.”
― Nelson Mandela, Long Walk to Freedom

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 9936
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: profanity filter again

Postby 661-Pete » 8 Sep 2014, 6:09pm

Vorpal wrote:The OP in this case typed the word 'micturate' to avoid the profanity filter.

Really!? That astonishes me: I can only suppose that he's been there before :roll: .
I presume you can therefore tell that I did not type the word "micturate", although I'm doing so now. I wasn't even sure how it was spelt... :?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

User avatar
661-Pete
Posts: 9936
Joined: 22 Nov 2012, 8:45pm
Location: Sussex

Re: profanity filter again

Postby 661-Pete » 8 Sep 2014, 6:14pm

profpointy wrote:well one problem is discussing bike saddles. When some says it causes <i>[rude word removed]</i> pain it substitutes **** so the reader then doesn't know whether the front or the back is being referred to. And the use of a standard anatomical word in context is not bad language in my book

If that's the case, would you use one of your so-called 'standard anatomical' words when visiting the doctor? Even if you were a woman?
Suppose that this room is a lift. The support breaks and down we go with ever-increasing velocity.
Let us pass the time by performing physical experiments...
--- Arthur Eddington (creator of the Eddington Number).

profpointy
Posts: 519
Joined: 9 Jun 2011, 10:34pm

Re: profanity filter again

Postby profpointy » 8 Sep 2014, 8:09pm

661-Pete wrote:
profpointy wrote:well one problem is discussing bike saddles. When some says it causes <i>[rude word removed]</i> pain it substitutes **** so the reader then doesn't know whether the front or the back is being referred to. And the use of a standard anatomical word in context is not bad language in my book

If that's the case, would you use one of your so-called 'standard anatomical' words when visiting the doctor? Even if you were a woman?


Well I'd feel a bit like a 3 year old if I was telling the Doc I had trouble with my "bottom" , so actually I'd use the word banned here. When discussing the matter on here, it was completely lost which word I was using. And if referring to someone as "a <rude word removed - by me> then it actually sounded worse than what was written."

Basically I think I'm saying a*** should be allowed, even if other words are rather less appropriate, and reasonable to ban

User avatar
Graham
Moderator
Posts: 6489
Joined: 14 Dec 2006, 8:48pm

Re: profanity filter again

Postby Graham » 8 Sep 2014, 8:36pm

I like the absurb substitutions.

. .. time to address those hyphenated outrages methinks. (Thanks for the tip-off ). . . . :wink:

User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 4948
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: profanity filter again

Postby Audax67 » 8 Sep 2014, 10:02pm

Graham wrote:I like the absurb similes.

. .. time to address those hyphenated outrages methinks. (Thanks for the tip-off ). . . . :wink:


No problem. While you're at it you might also consider àáâãäåçèéêëìíîïñòóôõöøùúü. ;) (Sorry, I'm a bit of a smart-aß at times.)

BTW, I haven't noticed any similes in this thread. Synonyms, maybe?
Have we got time for another cuppa?

User avatar
gaz
Posts: 14160
Joined: 9 Mar 2007, 12:09pm
Location: Kent, lorry park of England

Re: profanity filter again

Postby gaz » 8 Sep 2014, 10:20pm

661-Pete wrote:
Vorpal wrote:The OP in this case typed the word 'micturate' to avoid the profanity filter.

Really!? That astonishes me: I can only suppose that he's been there before :roll: .
I presume you can therefore tell that I did not type the word "micturate", although I'm doing so now. I wasn't even sure how it was spelt... :?


Anyone can check this for themselves. Type the "p" word in the search engine and it will return the various micturate substitutions. It won't return any genuine micturate, nor will it return Image.
There'll be tarmac over, the white cliffs of Dover ...

User avatar
Audax67
Posts: 4948
Joined: 25 Aug 2011, 9:02am
Location: Alsace, France
Contact:

Re: profanity filter again

Postby Audax67 » 9 Sep 2014, 9:44am

Something which amuses me is that Microsoft Word's spelling-checker (spell-checkers being members of Hogwarts' staff, I suppose) will flag earthy words when they're misspelt but will not suggest the correct versions in their wee list of 'corrections'.
Have we got time for another cuppa?

thirdcrank
Posts: 30802
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: profanity filter again

Postby thirdcrank » 9 Sep 2014, 4:30pm

Audax67 wrote: ... will not suggest the correct versions in their wee list of 'corrections'.


I wonder if I'm allowed to say that sounds like a crap list> :?

User avatar
Si
Moderator
Posts: 15183
Joined: 5 Jan 2007, 7:37pm

Re: profanity filter again

Postby Si » 9 Sep 2014, 4:46pm

Strange I'm sure that it used to allow the word in question, in fact I have used it my self on several occasions as I didn't really think it that naughty.

Anyway, BEWARE...there are a number of ways to beat the profanity filter, but if you do do that then the forum staff will probably amend your post manually, and if they have to do this several times they will more likely just to delete the whole post!

thirdcrank
Posts: 30802
Joined: 9 Jan 2007, 2:44pm

Re: profanity filter again

Postby thirdcrank » 9 Sep 2014, 6:14pm

When this type of thing has come up before, I've commented on the use of the word "swearing" to describe things which are not swearing at all; eg expressions which a dictionary might merely note were "not in polite use" or "vulgar." OTOH, the use of the word swearing in this way is probably so widespread that it's become normal usage. Lets not send "profanity" the same way.