Announcements : 2847


Announcements / 2847

		(murfl)
(murfl) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.announce, lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.cad, lugnet.org.it.itlug, lugnet.general) !!

		(canceled)


		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) This is true, but there are some words that many people find offensive and/or don't want their kids to see. But I don't think the issue here is about naughty words. I think the issue here is with the Orwellian mode of enforcement. I'd prefer (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) By what standard do you create this list? See this post for reference: (URL) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		(canceled)


		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) - snip - This discussion venue, despite what many obviously believe, does not have an agenda to tell you what you should think or what to believe. It's a simple request, really: please just keep the cussing down. Let me be clear on one thing. (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) I'd prefer to (...) This is exactly why Lugnet has not published a list of no-no words. But really, is there anyone here who doesn't know that fk is a bad word? I think the only two words that would get you an email from an admin are fk (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) I would like to point out: (...) Isn't that an editorial control??? This is a paradox! I agree with the fact that Lugnet should remain a pleasant place to talk but as far as today I don't agree with the way how this is done. It is the same as (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) Perhaps some folks would rather be explicitely controlled than to be scolded. I think it is partially a psychological expression. One the one hand "we don't put up with this here and we do whatever is necessary immediately to modify (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) Well, I'm pretty sure LUGNET isn't draconian; at least, I'm fairly certain that admins aren't running around lopping lugnetter fingers off for violating the ToS. However, I'd definitely describe the system (as put forth by Lar in his email to (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
In lugnet.general, Leonard Hoffman wrote: SNIP of some good stuff illustrating why it's kind of silly to decry LUGNET as an "Orwellian" entity (...) Just a minor point--I don't believe that Richard ever publicly declared a belief that the (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general, FTX)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) I guess I'd probably change the phrasing Larry used here-- Posting profanity IS a violation of the TOU, no if's about it. This speaks it better: (...) No two ways about it, you're already in violation. Question is whether or not you want to (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) I wasn't the least offended. In fact, I thought it was a misspelling of something (which I didn't try to decode) when I read the post. (...) I agree with you. There's no difference between admins cancelling and admins threatening action if the (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) I was thinking about the 'various ways' that people could get around the built-in filter (if there was one). Then I started thinking that if the filter turns specific words into #%##$, and people know that, so they type S P A C E D words to (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
Now this is an interesting idea. It seems like a simple way to deal with George Carlin's 7 dirty words. Turn the filter on by default. If people want to turn it off, let them : ) (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET---WHY SWEAR?
(snip) two words: WHY SWEAR? My experience has been that people who swear continually aren't intelligent enough to come up with a better word to use in their vocabulary. (I figure I'm going to get some nasty comments from that statement..let's see (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
In lugnet.general, David Koudys wrote: <some good stuff that I can't quote without getting censored> To me the suggestion that the current policy in not censorship is ridiculous. It's like the bully that grabs your arm and make you hit yourself, (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) A well crafted set of regular expressions would make this simple evasion harder to do. (...) IMHO regional filters would be difficult to do effectively. You'd need to know what region the reader is in as well as the region the poster was from (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) You missed the point of my post Lenny. I contend that not everyone thinks that the word you mentioned above is "bad" in every context. There shouldn't be a silver bullet policy that put you into "bad" territory just for writing a word. In (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
Just my two cents... But if your vocabulary is limited to the colorful metaphors maybe you should study a little... It's not that hard. And if "all hell breaking loose" is one e-mail from Larry then perhaps you should just relax. What could have (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general, FTX)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
IMHO, It would take a huge amount of processing power to analyze the text of every single post. THat's why human brains do it here, not computers. And what happens when you analyze this sentence: I was trying to finish it, but the earthquake smashed (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
In lugnet.announce, Willy Tschager wrote: snipped (...) direct from the ToU: "Additionally, you specifically acknowledge and agree that LUGNET and its owners, operators and/or related entities are not liable for any defamatory, offensive, or illegal (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote: <snip> (...) And I've stated that I like the non-profanity, kids or no. But if it is an issue, then, especially for the kids who may be reading posts, I do think that we should seriously consider the (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
(...) Would it surprise you if I wrote that I agree with most of what you wrote? The thing is that some long standing Lugnet members are getting very upset about getting threatening email regarding what may have been a comment in passing. This fact (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
In lugnet.general, Orion Pobursky wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> I realize that it's the admins choice to enforce the rules as they see fit and I (...) And the voice of reason. Thanks Orion for stating it succinctly. As a continuation of a few points, (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET
WTF?!?! Are you gonna quit LUGNET Community?!? SOrry Willy but I don't agree with ya. I got the chance to meet and to know you in 2003 (remember my oddissey in Bozen and Milan?) and I think you're one of the smarter soul I've ever met. However this (...) (19 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.org.it.itlug)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET---WHY SWEAR?
(...) The true master of language doesn't place any word in the English vocabulary off limits. In some cases, the rude word is just the correct one. Just ask Chaucer, William Shakespeare, DH Lawrence, or Henry James. Stupid use of a cuss word is (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET---WHY SWEAR?
(...) I was looking through this thread to find someone saying this, if not I was going to say it myself. I take a slightly different stance tho, to my mind swear words are useful expressions of extreme emotion and if you use them in general (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)

		Re: Bye, bye LUGNET---WHY SWEAR?
(...) I agree completely--like I said before, it should be about self policing ourselves. My big concern is that some of the younger audience might be reading. If children repeat what they read, then we may have parents having issues with Lugnet. (...) (19 years ago, 2-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)