 | | Re: Profanity again —Lester Witter
|
| | | (...) 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 —David Eaton
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | (...) 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 —Adrian Egli
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) 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 —Leonard Hoffman
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Isaac Yue
|
| | | | 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) 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 —Isaac Yue
|
| | | | | | (...) 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 —David Laswell
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | (...) 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 —Isaac Yue
|
| | | | (...) 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)
|
| | | | |
