![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 23 of 23. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 15:10:15
In reply to Re: please be civil » cockeyed, posted by Dr. Bob on September 24, 2005, at 9:52:25
> > Hey, whatthef[*]ck can you do?
> Please don't use language that could lead others to feel offended. Sorry, but the above could be considered to be bypassing automatic asterisking.Uh. I thought that if something got through the checker then that was okay...
I get that if you are asked not to do something then it is unwise to do it again but... Couldn't you just add words you don't like to the list of words to insert asterisks into??
Posted by wildcard on September 24, 2005, at 18:12:50
In reply to Re: please be civil » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 15:10:15
I am confused as there is an asterick similiar to many other posts?!
Posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 18:26:53
In reply to How was it bypassed Dr.Bob?, posted by wildcard on September 24, 2005, at 18:12:50
> I am confused as there is an asterick similiar to many other posts?!
Thats because he put one in there. There wasn't in the original post.
Posted by gardenergirl on September 24, 2005, at 19:10:13
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob? » wildcard, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 18:26:53
Perhaps Cockeyed turned automatic asterisking off?
Or alternatively, it's pretty obvious that f*ck is going to be considered vulgar, so perhaps using it in different forms, even if it doesn't get caught by the system, is not cool?
For example, if my silly f*rt post had said f*ck instead, then of course I would deserve a PBC. (I'm still not sold on the idea that f*rt is vulgar enough to be sanctioned...)
gg
Posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 19:16:57
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob?, posted by gardenergirl on September 24, 2005, at 19:10:13
> Perhaps Cockeyed turned automatic asterisking off?
I don't think thats it.
I think its more that 'whatthef[*]ck' doesn't occur in Miriam Webster in that precise form ;-)
Same saga with 'f[*]ckin'But if they are added to the list of words considered offensive on the civility checker then it would pick them up in future...
(I don't know how hard it is to 'just add them to the list' in practice)
Posted by wildcard on September 24, 2005, at 19:54:22
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob? » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 19:16:57
Posted by 10derHeart on September 24, 2005, at 23:31:18
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob? » gardenergirl, posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 19:16:57
>> I think its more that 'whatthef[*]ck' doesn't occur in Miriam Webster in that precise form ;-)
> Same saga with 'f[*]ckin'
>
> But if they are added to the list of words considered offensive on the civility checker then it would pick them up in future...
>
> (I don't know how hard it is to 'just add them to the list' in practice)
I agree. It's taking the basic word, and then combining it in a form not in M-W, or that Dr. Bob hasn't yet added to the list. The thing is, creative folk (= Babblers) can take a word like f*ck, and pretty much attach it in numerous ways to another word, or part of a word, so Dr. Bob will have to keep adding each new one posters come up with....right?<sigh> trials of being an administrator, I suppose.
>
>
Posted by alexandra_k on September 24, 2005, at 23:44:00
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob? » alexandra_k, posted by 10derHeart on September 24, 2005, at 23:31:18
> The thing is, creative folk (= Babblers) can take a word like f*ck, and pretty much attach it in numerous ways to another word, or part of a word, so Dr. Bob will have to keep adding each new one posters come up with....right?
Er... Yes. Unless... Anybody wants to have a go at programming a connectionist network ;-)
Though I have seen people mis-spell assess '*sses' (and I think the latter will get an asterisk inserted) so I wondered if it was picking up a word embedded in a bigger word... But... Hmm... Is '*sses' the plural of '*ss'???
Seriously though... I think (though I may be wrong) that there are relatively few variations that occur frequently enough so that it might be worth adding them?
Otherwise... I guess people just have to make an effort to swear according to Miriam Webster... Or something....
Doesn't really matter.
Might be more trouble than it is worth.
> <sigh> trials of being an administrator, I suppose.
> >
> >
>
>
Posted by thuso on September 24, 2005, at 23:47:21
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob? » alexandra_k, posted by 10derHeart on September 24, 2005, at 23:31:18
> >> I think its more that 'whatthef[*]ck' doesn't occur in Miriam Webster in that precise form ;-)
> > Same saga with 'f[*]ckin'
> >
> > But if they are added to the list of words considered offensive on the civility checker then it would pick them up in future...
> >
> > (I don't know how hard it is to 'just add them to the list' in practice)
>
>
> I agree. It's taking the basic word, and then combining it in a form not in M-W, or that Dr. Bob hasn't yet added to the list. The thing is, creative folk (= Babblers) can take a word like f*ck, and pretty much attach it in numerous ways to another word, or part of a word, so Dr. Bob will have to keep adding each new one posters come up with....right?
>
> <sigh> trials of being an administrator, I suppose.
> >
> >
>
>
I don't know how his civility word thingy works, but I wonder if he could put an * before and after a vulgar word so thaht if that word is found in any form it is censored. For example *f*ck* would catch motherf*cker, f*ckin', etc. Anywhere those four letters are seen, it censors it. This obviously can't be done with every word. Like we wouldn't want words like bass to look like b*ss. hahaha! But I can't think of any 'normal' word that includes f*ck, sh*t, d*mn, f*rt (I still can't believe that one!), etc as part of the word.I wonder if his checker will allow for the * to be used as a way to cover all forms of a word. hmmm....
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2005, at 0:08:09
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob?, posted by thuso on September 24, 2005, at 23:47:21
> I wonder if his checker will allow for the * to be used as a way to cover all forms of a word. hmmm....
Yes. I just assumed that it couldn't - but other things can do that. Like how you get * to act as wildcard to search for different variations in the library catalogue system.
:-)
Posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2005, at 0:16:27
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob?, posted by thuso on September 24, 2005, at 23:47:21
i think 'damned' is okay...
and on that note...
i posted you a damned post over on students
(in case you didn't see it):-)
Posted by wildcard on September 25, 2005, at 0:27:00
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob? » thuso, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2005, at 0:08:09
>Like how you get * to act as wildcard to search for different variations in the library catalogue system.
and just wondered if i missed something?? ;~}
Posted by thuso on September 25, 2005, at 0:31:34
In reply to Re: ps » thuso, posted by alexandra_k on September 25, 2005, at 0:16:27
> i think 'damned' is okay...
> and on that note...
> i posted you a damned post over on students
> (in case you didn't see it)
>
> :-)Nope...didn't see it. I'm not a student anymore! (at least for now) hahaha!!! :-p I'll answer over there.
On another note...how can damned be ok, but not fart????? <Here is where I would insert a smilie scratching his head>
Posted by thuso on September 25, 2005, at 0:38:13
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob?, posted by gardenergirl on September 24, 2005, at 19:10:13
> For example, if my silly f*rt post had said f*ck instead, then of course I would deserve a PBC. (I'm still not sold on the idea that f*rt is vulgar enough to be sanctioned...)
>Why did it not substitute '*' for the 'a' in my post? If it was being sanctioned, wouldn't it automatically do that? Now I'm confused! Is it a bad word or not on here?
Posted by 10derHeart on September 25, 2005, at 1:31:06
In reply to Re: ps, posted by thuso on September 25, 2005, at 0:31:34
TESTING:
f*rt?????<
huh.
Isn't that pretty much - or even exactly how you typed it?
weird.
Posted by thuso on September 25, 2005, at 3:01:12
In reply to Re: ps » thuso, posted by 10derHeart on September 25, 2005, at 1:31:06
> TESTING:
>
> f*rt?????<
>
> huh.
>
> Isn't that pretty much - or even exactly how you typed it?
>
> weird.Yeah...that is how I typed it. Does this mean I'm special and exempt from being censored? hahaha! ;-) Maybe I shouldn't press my luck!
Posted by gardenergirl on September 25, 2005, at 3:28:09
In reply to Re: ps » 10derHeart, posted by thuso on September 25, 2005, at 3:01:12
You can choose to turn off automatic asterisking. I wonder if perhaps you did that accidentally? But then again, other words are getting asterisked in your posts, right?
Weird.
gg
Posted by Deneb on September 25, 2005, at 18:36:31
In reply to Re: ps » thuso, posted by gardenergirl on September 25, 2005, at 3:28:09
> You can choose to turn off automatic asterisking. I wonder if perhaps you did that accidentally? But then again, other words are getting asterisked in your posts, right?
>
> Weird.
>
> ggHow does one turn off automatic asterisking? I don't want to, but I'm just curious.
Deneb
Posted by gardenergirl on September 25, 2005, at 21:52:54
In reply to Re: ps » gardenergirl, posted by Deneb on September 25, 2005, at 18:36:31
I figured it was in registration but I didn't see it there.
gg
Posted by crushedout on September 25, 2005, at 23:05:03
In reply to Re: How was it bypassed Dr.Bob?, posted by gardenergirl on September 24, 2005, at 19:10:13
i'm definitely with you on that, gg.
Posted by 10derHeart on September 25, 2005, at 23:36:42
In reply to Good question re turning off asterisking » Deneb, posted by gardenergirl on September 25, 2005, at 21:52:54
http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/settings.pl
:-)
now don't everyone go and turn it off to live dangerously....!!!
Posted by rainbowbrite on September 26, 2005, at 9:02:45
In reply to It's actually separate, in Psycho Babble Settings » gardenergirl, posted by 10derHeart on September 25, 2005, at 23:36:42
>
> now don't everyone go and turn it off to live dangerously....!!!***giggles***
Posted by Atticus on September 28, 2005, at 10:41:02
In reply to Re: It's actually separate, in Psycho Babble Settings » 10derHeart, posted by rainbowbrite on September 26, 2005, at 9:02:45
Oi! You laugh, but I was once blocked for six weeks after I turned off the auto-censor and then accidentally forgot to include that all-important asterisk in the word "f*ck." I thought the whole thing was so ridiculous that I didn't return to the site for eight months. I wasn't trying to hurt anyone's feelings or make them feel put down or anything of the kind. I'll never understand the bloody Puritanical American obsession with so-called "dirty" words. It stikes me as such a load of b*llocks. Atticus
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.