|
in reply to Profanity in the CB/Nodes
I think it is a good idea, because you are right. Why should people’s boundaries be forced upon someone else’s boundaries. This is life, but in the world of computing and programming it can be addressed. One thing though is that if the filter produces s**t, everyone knows what that is. Another example is: mother*@#!%& We all know what that is. What would be pretty cool would be to have a filter that when ever is saw the word "shit" it would replace it with the word "crap". Crap may not be expectable either but it is better then the alternative. It would be sort of like primetime television censorship in America. When every a character says, "blah blah blah my ass." It get filtered to, "blah blah blah my eye." Sort of comical but it works. Just a thought. |
Re: Profanity in the CB/Nodes
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Jan 29, 2004 at 16:34 UTC
|
What would be pretty cool would be to have a filter that when ever is saw the word "shit" it would replace it with the word "crap". Crap may not be expectable either but it is better then the alternative.
Who do you think is naieve enough to be fooled by a filter
that replaces 'shit' with 'crap'? It neither changes the
meaning nor the intent of the author. It would only fool a
reader who isn't proficient enough to read a sentence and
get a meaning out of the sequence of words - only someone who
reads word-by-word without consulting the context might be fooled. But such a person would get upset about 'crap' as
well. A more neutral replacement, 'humming bird'
for instance, could do the trick.
Abigail
| [reply] |
|
|
The whole idea of a filter is not to change the meaning of the sentence or to fool the reader in anyway but to make it more exceptable for all readers. A more neutral word could be used but, it also could be more obvious to the reader that profanity was used.
| [reply] |
|
|
As I said, only the utterly naieve will find relief in such
a filter. Either you change the meaning or intent of the
poster - or you don't. If you don't, it's still profanity.
"Shit" isn't profanity because it's an 's' followed by an 'h'
followed by an 'i' and trailed by a 't'. It's the meaning that's important. Regardless whether
you call 'shit', 'crap' or 'fluffy bun', it's the same
smelly substance.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
-- William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
Abigail
| [reply] |
|
|
|
|
I think it's obvious to the reader that profanity was used when the reader sees the word 'shit'. Seriously, if this mythical reader has a problem being exposed to such a word, it's their responsibility to disconnect their computer from the Internet.
-- Mike
--
XML::Simpler does not require XML::Parser or a SAX parser.
It does require File::Slurp.
-- grantm, perldoc XML::Simpler
| [reply] |
|
