profanity filter again

[661-Pete]

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

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?

[profpointy]

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]

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].

[Audax67]

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.

[Vorpal]

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

[661-Pete]

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 .
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...

[661-Pete]

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?

[profpointy]

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

[Graham]

I like the absurb substitutions.

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

[Audax67]

I like the absurb similes.

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

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?

[gaz]

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 .
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 .

[Audax67]

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'.

[thirdcrank]

... 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>

[Si]

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]

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.