The Chat Thread

[knight66]

I once had a pair of pseude shoes, I wore them out quite quickly. They were brown, not blue.

Mike

[Coco]

Pseuds?

Phonies, y'know?

[Mn Dave]

I once had a pair of pseude shoes, I wore them out quite quickly. They were brown, not blue.

Mike

I had a pair of pseudo shoes.  They were worthless.

[Mn Dave]

Phonies, y'know?

No, I didn't. That's why I asked. 

[knight66]

But mine were real pseud, honest.

Mike

[Mn Dave]

Hey, Pseud. Don't make it bad...

[knight66]

Lemmon and McCartney?

Mike

[Mn Dave]

Whatever happened to that Elgar chap? Alan.

[mc ukrneal]

But I don't understand. If swearing is against the rules (and that is what Knight himself stated in his post), why wasn't one of the most offensive words in the English language, well...moderated? And if you only moderate it some of the time, well that is favoritism and a road to conflict. Personally, it wasn't a big deal to me (though I would prefer we not use words like that in a public forum), but rules are rules and selective application is, in my opinion, not recommended.

[Coco]

Yes, but Philo has been here for years and contributes a lot of value.

Churchmouse was some nonentity who suddenly appeared and felt it incumbent upon them to tell the moderators how to run the site, which is not the best way to introduce oneself.

[Mn Dave]

Churchmouse was some nonentity who suddenly appeared and felt it incumbent upon them to tell the moderators how to run the site, which is not the best way to introduce oneself.

Exactly.

[knight66]

ukrneal, it is a perfectly legitimate question. It was not about favouritism. But I don't think we have to expunge every single cuss word. This instance was not directed at anyone, it was a mere emphasis. But I have now reminded Philo and hope he can utilise the wider vocabulary he has to make such emphasis.

It is a useful issue to raise from time to time.

I am going out now, but am happy to discuss it further if that is wanted.

Knight

[DavidW]

Didn't the forum software used to automatically bleep out stuff?  We could just turn it on again, and while we're at it the mp3 function work again as well.

[Opus106]

Didn't the forum software used to automatically bleep out stuff?

PF had that (maybe still does). And every time someone mentioned any of the volumes by Landau and his co-author, it would show up as "Landau and Lif****z".

[DavidW]

PF had that (maybe still does). And every time someone mentioned any of the volumes by Landau and his co-author, it would show up as "Landau and Lif****z".

Oh yeah I remember that!   I thought we did too, and there was musician named Fuchs and it would block the name.

[Gurn Blanston]

PF had that (maybe still does). And every time someone mentioned any of the volumes by Landau and his co-author, it would show up as "Landau and Lif****z".

Yes, in the short period of time that we tried that out here, there were a multitude of examples of perfectly adequate words that even the most diehard bluenose would use that were starred out. It was actually to the point of silliness.



----------------
Now playing:
Haydn Sinfonietta Wien \ Huss - Hob 02 01 Divertimento a cinque in G for Flute, Oboe & Strings 1st mvmt - Allegro

[Opus106]

I thought we did too, and there was musician named Fuchs and it would block the name.

Huh? I thought these programs blocked only strings supplied by the forum owner. Did it also know how to read like humans did?

[DavidW]

Huh? I thought these programs blocked only strings supplied by the forum owner. Did it also know how to read like humans did?

Or it just blocked the string 'fuc', I would like to use the wayback machine to refresh my memory!

[Opus106]

Or it just blocked the string 'fuc'...

Ah.

[Gurn Blanston]

Huh? I thought these programs blocked only strings supplied by the forum owner. Did it also know how to read like humans did?

It came with a list of words, like an online dictionary does. The owner could allow a string or add strings, but he didn't have to create them from scratch.