 | | Profanity again
|
| Looks like the problem has returned: (URL) Dave! could have made this comment in a more appropriate manner. Besides, John could have meant "frick'n" instead of the other f-word. Adr. (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) And whereas I'd agree on a moral ground, having been a person who doesn't like to use profanity in everyday discourse, I do think that things said in o.t-d can get a little passionate. I'm not advocating usage of profanity in every post, but, (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) Not *that* passionate, in my view and in the view of the other admins as stated here: (URL) I'm not advocating usage of profanity in (...) Dave subsequently requested a cancel of the post, and reposted without the profanity. As for John's use (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| In lugnet.admin.terms, Larry Pieniazek wrote: <snip> (...) Rats! I was just nuking the popcorn and getting comfy in my Laz-E-boy, preparing myself for the 'entertaining posts' to come... ;p Admins, you're doing a bang-up job. Thankfully, from what (...) (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) LOL Fat chance with Richard hopping about. ROSCO (20 years ago, 9-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) Perhaps we could have implictly undestord code word substitutes for certain rude words. For example blasphous exclaimations could be replaced by "MegaBlok" and of couese, the word in question by "bley" (also a four letters) or the alternative (...) (20 years ago, 13-Sep-04, to lugnet.admin.terms, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) I always figured it'd be funny to replace people's swears automatically on the server. So if someone swore, their text would quickly get turned into something a bit tamer. Something like: s/freaking/buttermilk buscuit/gi s/bullpoop/muffin/gi (...) (20 years ago, 13-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| In lugnet.off-topic.fun, David Eaton wrote: (snipped Lester entirely, and most of what David said) (...) IIRC classic-castle.com has implemented just such a mechanism in their chat, everything profane that the filter substitutes for gets turned into (...) (20 years ago, 13-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) As much as I don't care for the implied disparaging of my favorite brand, I have to admit that this is a pretty funny failsafe. Dave! (20 years ago, 13-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) It's good to read you're OK with it. When I saw this the other day I thought "Hey! That's a very good idea!" An idea came to me this morning- how about a poll? It would a rating type with a list of clone brands in alphabetical order and (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) The odd part, however, is that it makes it difficult to talk about various clone brands. For instance: "I MegaBloks hate stupid Megabloks" but the best part is, not just curse words are filtered out - certain other terms/words that offend yer (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) In practice I wouldn't have a problem with it, because I generally don't resort to profanity and wouldn't therefore have to worry about any word-substitution in my posts. But one dilemma is that it would imply that LUGNET as an entity is (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) That and without a way to edit posts, typos can make it look like you swore. I found a few accidental typos while searching for swears the other day. Things like someone who misspelled "cut" by inserting an extra letter. Also you've got to (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.fun, lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) Well, it's only my opinion, but I'd suggest that a "true" clone brand is based on the studs-and-tubes system and is able to maintain reasonable clutch power with LEGO bricks and plates. I used to consider the 3:1 plate:brick height ratio to be (...) (20 years ago, 14-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| Hello, (...) Regarding Dave's comment on the distinction of minifig designs between brands; I have taken the liberty to do a rough comparison of the actual differences between an Oxford minifig and a Lego one. I am posting it (URL) here> as it (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) That's really interesting. The four Oxford minifigs that I have (from the tank set 13000) have a leg design that's considerably different from what you've shown. I'll try to scan them to show you what I mean. (...) Here are two others: (URL) (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) Uh, wouldn't that sorta rule out the real LEGO system? Shortswords haven't been made in ABS for years, and I don't believe the minesweeper or cutlass/sabre ever were. The huge axe and katana never were, and the whip/vine would probably arrive (...) (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) Hey, I hadn't thought of that. That also rules out Oxford and Coko, but it may rule-in Stikfas, which are entirely non-compatible, other than their accessories. I stand by my 2x4 brick distintion! Dave! (20 years ago, 15-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) After you said that I went back to look at all my Oxford figs, and I noticed that the military Oxford figs I have also have different legs design (they're more like Lego's with holes in the back, but are square instead of round). So apparently (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Profanity again
|
| (...) Hmm... I see you have a point there. So I guess what I really mean is as long as the accessories don't look out of place in the hands of a Lego minifig (relatively speaking), I'd consider them a clone brand which I defined by companies that (...) (20 years ago, 17-Sep-04, to lugnet.off-topic.clone-brands, FTX)
| |
