|
|
 | | 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, (...) (21 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 : ) (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
| | | | | 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general, FTX)
| | | | | 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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 (...) (21 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 f**k is a bad word? I think the only two words that would get you an email from an admin are f**k (...) (21 years ago, 1-Mar-05, to lugnet.general)
|
|
