Swearing

[jim boy]

Why is the swearing filter left on?

Granted I don't think there is any place for gratuitous swearing, but every conversation I've had in real life about footy usually encompasses some amount of words considered to be of an uncouth nature. Language itself has also become much more accepting of taboo words. Swear words are now an acceptable part of the lexicon to emphasise points. The other day a London paper ran in big in large type a headline of F*CK CILLA BLACK (without the asterix), and while it launched a certain amount of controversy, it got through. Yet on bigfooty, we have to adopt a stilted and unlife-like prose to account for the sensibilities of some unknown group of people who may be offended.

Except that largely we don't, we get around it by by using full sops in the middle of words or carats or umlauts or whatever. Even asterisks don't really leave too much to the imagination.

So I think it's time to get real, and accept that the era of the conservative approach to language has gone and that the swear word filter be removed.

 

[Bluey]

I wouldn't wipe my arse with an english newspaper, so I hardly think I'm going to take my lead from them. (see, you can say 'arse').

This site is open to a wide variety of users, young and old. When you are on this site you are not at the footy. When you signed up to this site you agreed to certain terms of use. Is it too much to ask that you abide by the terms you have already agreed to?

If you have such a feeble grasp of the English language that you find it impossible to express yourself without evading the swearing filters I think you should consider going to another site.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Agreed. I find Graham John**** to be most offensive.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by Docker_Brat
Agreed. I find Graham John**** to be most offensive.

Always the same example. Isn't there another one?

 

[mandy]

Che ****atoo-Collins?

 

[Stealth bomber]

How about Essendon legend and AFL hall of famer Four-Asterisk Reynolds?

 

[Frodo]

The swearing issue is an interesting one but probably not really applicable to this board.
It is, in fact, something that has become everyday language. I don't like it but can't escape the fact.
The Darren Lehman case was very interesting. He used the terminology 'Black C*nt'. Now swearing is very much part of cricket. How many times have we seen a bowler mouth the f*ck word after being hit for four or having a near miss, never being reprimanded. And AFL players, soccer players, basketball etc, are the same.
So it leaves us with the clear message that swearing is acceptable in public. It also leaves us with the conclusion that Lehman was suspended for using the word 'black', which is not acceptable (although white and POME are).

There can be no doubt that one has to abide by the site rules, but I believe Jim Boy in posting his suggestion gives a valid argument for change. I personaly would not like to see that change but I respect his right to present it and don't think that

If you have such a feeble grasp of the English language that you find it impossible to express yourself without evading the swearing filters I think you should consider going to another site.

is a reasonable response.

 

[Bluey]

That's your opinion Frodo. You have a right to it.

I also have a right to disdain people who are unable to converse without swearing or curb their language when, by joining the site, they have agreed to do so. I also have the right to enforce that agreement on this site.

My response was referring to Jim Boy's admission that he evades the swearing filters, not his request that they be removed.

No matter how much public support gets behind the removal of the swearing filters it will not happen. There are other sites that allow swearing for those unable to use the English language properly. This one doesn't.

If I'm being too abrupt or rude then you all have my apologies. And an invitation to kiss my arse

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by Bluey

If you have such a feeble grasp of the English language that you find it impossible to express yourself without evading the swearing filters

Always the same excuse used by people who look down on swearing.

One swear word, when used correctly, can evoke emotion and meaning and illustrate the feeling of that person, like no other words can.

I'm sick of the tired old adage that people who swear have a low vocabulary, when it's quite interesting to note that people who swear, and can also critically write would actually have a larger vocabulary, if you include the swear words they use.

Everyone that visits this site is supposed to be over 13 years of age, and if they are not 13 years of age they are meant to have written parents approval.

At 13 you are in the beginning of year 8, and I know at my school in year 8 the swearing was rife, and every kid knew all the words under the sun, and weren't afraid to use them either.

I feel like I'm living in the dark ages here, next all the women who contribute will have to wear full length avatars.

 

[Gandalf]

Originally posted by ozzult
Always the same excuse used by people who look down on swearing.

One swear word, when used correctly, can evoke emotion and meaning and illustrate the feeling of that person, like no other words can.

I'm sick of the tired old adage that people who swear have a low vocabulary, when it's quite interesting to note that people who swear, and can also critically write would actually have a larger vocabulary, if you include the swear words they use.

Everyone that visits this site is supposed to be over 13 years of age, and if they are not 13 years of age they are meant to have written parents approval.

At 13 you are in the beginning of year 8, and I know at my school in year 8 the swearing was rife, and every kid knew all the words under the sun, and weren't afraid to use them either.

I feel like I'm living in the dark ages here, next all the women who contribute will have to wear full length avatars.

Swearing is for the unintelligent when they have nothing more to say.

People this is a public forum that anybody can acsess so swearing would not be a good idea because if a 9 year old happened to drop by and saw everyone typing swearwords he would think thats what normal people would do so he's going to do it too. I think some of you are forgetting how gullible kids are.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Originally posted by Fred
Always the same example. Isn't there another one?

Brenton Ad****
**** Reynolds
**** Jones

Just figured the usual example is one that would be mentioned more often being a current player.

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by ozzult
I feel like I'm living in the dark ages here, next all the women who contribute will have to wear full length avatars.

You mean we don't have to now.

OI Bluey, you told me that was already the rule here, OK off comes my full length avatar, yay that's better.

 

[Docker_Brat]

Originally posted by Bluey
If you have such a feeble grasp of the English language that you find it impossible to express yourself without evading the swearing filters I think you should consider going to another site.

Originally email by Bluey

BECAUSE I KEEP GETTING SIDE TRACKED ANSWERING YOUR FU*KING E-MAILS AND THOSE OF OTHER CLOWNS HARPING ON THIS EXACT SUBJECT!

I guess you cant express yourself without swearing.. or yelling.

 

[Bluey]

Oh - every rule has its exception. Especially in relation to f*cking clowns who, when they re-distribute private communications with a third party, don't bother to include the whole e-mail in context, in this case it would be the next line:

"(... I hope I didn't say that out loud just now... )"

Which shows that the e-mail was a joke about not having enough time to fulfill a request due to having to answer lengthy e-mailed lectures about why the request should be fulfilled immediately.

The request was fulfilled and all parties seem to be happy with the resolution - just in case you were simply trying to embarass me rather than add to the weight of either side of the argument, DB.

Not that I'm saying that is your style.

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by Gandalf
Swearing is for the unintelligent when they have nothing more to say.

People this is a public forum that anybody can acsess so swearing would not be a good idea because if a 9 year old happened to drop by and saw everyone typing swearwords he would think thats what normal people would do so he's going to do it too. I think some of you are forgetting how gullible kids are.

9 year olds are not allowed to visit this forum by law, except without the written consent of a parent/guardian.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by Jim Boy
... the era of the conservative approach to language has gone ...

This is the result of moral decay, not some wonderful, utopian evolutionary advancement.

 

[mantis]

Originally posted by ozzult
9 year olds are not allowed to visit this forum by law, except without the written consent of a parent/guardian.

And your point being

If their parents give them written consent, then they can visit here, even become members.

 

[Gandalf]

Originally posted by ozzult
9 year olds are not allowed to visit this forum by law, except without the written consent of a parent/guardian.

It's not exactly hard to click the 13 or over link.

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by Gandalf
It's not exactly hard to click the 13 or over link.

You think that is there because of Bluey's moral ethics, it's a legal thing. If an under ager clicks the link to say they are over 13 and they see swearing and get offended, that's their problem.

I'm not saying do away with the swear filter altogether, but for **** sakes, at least relax it a little with pathetic things like Graham John****, and **** Reynolds.

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by mantis
And your point being

If their parents give them written consent, then they can visit here, even become members.

My point BEING, that Gandalf said if a 9 year old drops past here and sees people swearing than they will do it as well. My point BEING, if the parents give them written consent, and if they aren't irresponsible parents, they will view the site and see whether or not it is suitable.

Then the parents decide what is suitable and what isn't.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by ozzult
You think that is there because of Bluey's moral ethics, it's a legal thing. If an under ager clicks the link to say they are over 13 and they see swearing and get offended, that's their problem.

I'm not saying do away with the swear filter altogether, but for **** sakes, at least relax it a little with pathetic things like Graham John****, and **** Reynolds.

I was under the impression that it was like love and marriage ... you can't have one without the other. If you wan't John**** to be freely available, then the **** element of that name is going to be freely available to the masses as well.

This would mean all language maintenace would have to be performed manually, which would require a staff of hundreds.

Hey Bluey, IS THERE any code option that allows you to censor a certain term, except if it is directly alongside another term?

Eg. Let's imagine tiger is a dirty word (and who could argue).

Imagine if the filter could replace "tiger" with "*****".
BUT before it does that, it checks to ensure it wasn't part of the term "tigercide" (which rest much more easily on me). If it WAS part of this term, then the text is left as is.

 

[ozzult]

Originally posted by Mobbenfuhrer
I was under the impression that it was like love and marriage ... you can't have one without the other. If you wan't John**** to be freely available, then the **** element of that name is going to be freely available to the masses as well.

This would mean all language maintenace would have to be performed manually, which would require a staff of hundreds.

Hey Bluey, IS THERE any code option that allows you to censor a certain term, except if it is directly alongside another term?

Eg. Let's imagine tiger is a dirty word (and who could argue).

Imagine if the filter could replace "tiger" with "*****".
BUT before it does that, it checks to ensure it wasn't part of the term "tigercide" (which rest much more easily on me). If it WAS part of this term, then the text is left as is.

Yes, that is possible with the latest version of vB. You can do things like make the word "C O C K" only deleted if it is the word on it's own, or you can delete if it is part of another word as well, for example, John****. The current option of BigFooty.

 

[Mobbs]

Originally posted by ozzult
Yes, that is possible with the latest version of vB. You can do things like make the word "C O C K" only deleted if it is the word on it's own, or you can delete if it is part of another word as well, for example, John****. The current option of BigFooty.

I don't know vB but I know the general syntax and lexiconography of programming.

I would expect that the current setting is set this way so that the words "tigerhead" or "tigersucker" would also be censored. Unfortunately "Johntiger" would also be censored.

Perhaps there is an issue in programming a difference between exactly WHICH text is adjacent to the swearword.

If it can be easy enough to add some 'exception' terms, eg this Johnthingy bloke, then yes, I am all for a change. I just assumed the option didn't exist.

 

[Fred]

Originally posted by ozzult

I'm not saying do away with the swear filter altogether, but for **** sakes, at least relax it a little with pathetic things like Graham John****, and **** Reynolds.

That's exactly what you are saying. If it's turned off, it's done away with.
Swearing adds nothing to an argument IMO and more often than not gives the impression the writer has lost the plot.


BTW - I agree with finding a way to have peoples names left intact if it can be done.

 

[Stealth bomber]

I would like to see the filter able to differentiate names from curse words as well, if possible.

It got pretty ridiculous when Four-Asterisk Reynolds passed away and nobody could type his name.

As for swearing, I don't think it is a sign of intelligence or stupidity one way or the other. I do tend to think that they pretty much lose the effect if you use them every other word.

I personally have no problem with swearing, but it isn't my decision to make.