 | | Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
|
Also sprach Todd Lehman: : The difficult thing is that it's not really possible to define profanity in : any way that people can agree on, especially in purely illustrative contexts : such as Jim Baker's (a.k.a. "Beaker") delicate use of the F-word (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
|
Beaker wrote in message ... (...) While I agree with you, I think you're misapplying the principle. We *should* discourage the LCD approach, but with the intention of raising the standard not lowering it. Too much of the internet is already devoted (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
|
Also sprach Moz (Chris Moseley): : For instance, RTL is a venue that allows, even encourages, completely : free expression. If you can't post within reasonable bounds then perhaps : RTL is more your cup of tea than LugNet is? That's the thing, (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
|
(...) Sorry to accuse you of waving that libertarian flag a little too strongly, but if you look at it from a true libertarian perspective wouldn't you respect a unilateral ban HERE, on Lugnet, since this IS a private system owned by two private (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
|
Also sprach Mike Stanley: : Sorry to accuse you of waving that libertarian flag a little too : strongly, but if you look at it from a true libertarian perspective : wouldn't you respect a unilateral ban HERE, on Lugnet, since this IS a : private (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
|
(...) I am not a conservative by any means, please! I wish that profanity be banned here in order to foster the ability to make choices. If the same standards apply here as on RTL, then there is no choice to be made. Let a hundred flowers bloom (1) (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
|
Beaker wrote in message ... (...) That's not really the issue - you keep saying "like" and "can live without" but at the same time you insistently argue against a ban. Would it mean that much to you to have this area declared a clean zone? The more (...) (26 years ago, 31-Dec-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
|
Also sprach Moz (Chris Moseley): : That's not really the issue - you keep saying "like" and "can live without" : but at the same time you insistently argue against a ban. Would it mean A ban is almost always a poor alternative to a sensible and (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
|
Beaker wrote in message ... (...) How so? Even I could write a simple filter script to detect and reject a list of banned words for the news environments I've seen. And I don't see how having such a list is "intellectually limiting" - if anything (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: Profanity (was Re: Lego(r) Master Maniac designation?)
|
|
(...) Keep in mind, If someone desires any kind of filtering or censoring, they'll have to do it themselves at the client end. For legal reasons, it's never going to happen at the server end, either manually or automatically. Doing so opens things (...) (26 years ago, 1-Jan-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
