Private Messages - censored?

Posted by: Pogorelich.

Private Messages - censored? - 03/06/11 11:44 PM

Okay, I understand public forums being "censored". But private messages, really? That's so unfair. I have friends here that I would like to talk to freely and vent with - and I can't! Noody sees these messages anyway, what's the problem?

Freedom of speech...?
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/06/11 11:52 PM

It could just be a software thing. There are lots of similarities between posting and writing PM's. I bet large parts of the same software code are used for both, and it's probably not possible to censor messages and not PM's. Annoying, I agree.

-J
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/06/11 11:54 PM

That's just how the software works. And since anybody can send anybody a PM, it's safer.

If you know somebody well enough to vent and talk freely with, you also know them well enough to exchange email addresses or friend them on Facebook. (That's what I do - and I rather like getting to know forum people on FB.) laugh
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/06/11 11:55 PM

PW just gets better and better every day.
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/06/11 11:56 PM

By the way did you decide to censor it because of me? You could've asked me to leave, you know (or shut up).. would've made things easier =)

Plus messages on PW are SO much better than facebook, I like the colour and the whole space, and the characters and fonts, colours etc. Kind of ruined now though.
Posted by: jotur

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:10 AM

Boy am I in trouble -

How "censored"? I thought the mods couldn't read the pm's - does the software just notify them of 4-letter words or something?

Cathy
Posted by: Orange Soda King

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:11 AM

Originally Posted By: jotur
Boy am I in trouble -

How "censored"? I thought the mods couldn't read the pm's - does the software just notify them of 4-letter words or something?

Cathy


I think censoring words on PW is new now, so there's nothing to worry about. What was done before the censoring should not be used against you now.
Posted by: jotur

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:15 AM

Thanks OSK, but I don't think I've used 4-letter words even in pm's.

But slander -

:\

Cathy
Posted by: R0B

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:15 AM

On another forum I visit, the Admins decided to change software settings to replace um, colourful language.
For example, typing one particular word, resulted in the words, 'Ryan Seacrest' being substituted ha
Posted by: jotur

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:16 AM

A forum I frequent does that, too. You can no longer say "hotwater bottle" with the first word as all one word smile

Cathy
Posted by: R0B

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:18 AM

Originally Posted By: jotur
A forum I frequent does that, too. You can no longer say "hotwater bottle" with the first word as all one word smile

Cathy


That's gold laugh
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:30 AM

Word of warning: Private Messages aren't really private. I do not know if moderators can read them -and I doubt Kreisler will admit to anything- but believe me, the owner of this website CAN read them if he chooses to. He owns the website, that is within his jurisdiction.

I found that out the hard way on another (non-musical) db. Whew, that wasn't pretty. cry

Whenever I get into extensive PMs with people here, I always ask to switch over to independent email.
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:46 AM

The censoring is automatically done by the software. Mods (like me) *cannot* access your private messages. I don't think the admins can either, but I'll ask them.

FYI - I only have the ability to do edit, lock, and move topics and posts. I can also see the ip address where each post originated. I have no special access to user accounts. I see the same stuff about you that every ody else does.
Posted by: jotur

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:48 AM

Whew!

laugh

Cathy
Posted by: Horowitzian

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:58 AM

Admins with cpanel access to the server can query the database for anything they want to see.
Posted by: jazzwee

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 01:15 AM

One of the more colorful people on P.C. was talking to me on PM and a lot of words appeared with [Censored] on it.

Like ..."I don't know a [Censored] thing about what you're talking about" (just a sample).

So I figured what the word was. LOL. I actually thought it was typed in manually but then it occurred so often that I had to think.

No Cathy, it wasn't you...:)

So that's when I discovered this "new" feature.
Posted by: jazzwee

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 01:18 AM

It should be obvious that Frank can see anything he wants to see. If it's not obvious, then I'll teach you something. The person managing your email system COULD read your emails too.

In fact this is so obvious that by law (US), Physicians cannot talk to/about patients by email.

I have no doubt that someone at Facebook can read your private messages as well.

...it gets worse. Ever hear of a "packet analyzer"?
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 03:40 AM

Originally Posted By: Orange Soda King
....I think censoring words on PW is new now....

OK -- that explains a little surprise I had yesterday.

I typed "heck" in a post yesterday but it came out as "heck."
Nothing like that ever happened before. I mean, I'm pretty sure I said "heck" a few times in the past and it always came out before as "heck," just the way I typed it, but this time it came out as "heck."

Edit: So.....they all came out as heck.
Not that I didn't expect it. ha

P.S. If anyone doesn't know what was the word that I typed instead of "heck"......well, that's easy -- just look it up in the dictionary under.....aah, what the heck, if I type it again I'm sure it'll just come out again as "heck".....

In fact, now you never know if someone said "heck" or "heck."
(Dam, 2 hecks again.) ha

BTW: For what it's worth, IMHO it would have been good to announce the new automatic censor when it was put in. Not that much of a big deal, but it would have been a 'nice touch' rather than making us be taken by surprise.
Posted by: Cinnamonbear

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 04:12 AM

Well, as someone who values freedom of expression, be it musical, artistic or otherwise, I gotst a real problem wit dis.

I do not understand how anyone with any respect for expression can think it is o.k. to have a machine change the language that I choose to type. If there are offensive key words not to be used in public discourse, then that should be made clear in the user agreement or something. If people can't obey the rules, they should be invited to leave for a time. But having a machine automatically "search" and "replace" words that I have typed on purpose makes me cringe, shudder, sweat, and puke in fear of where "We" are headed. (I mean, has anyone else read "We" by Yevgeny Zamyatin? Know what I mean?) What's next? Will the machine be programmed to not allow any discussion of the use of A min. or F# maj.? I know this is Frank's house and everything... And I am more than happy to take my shoes off at the door it those are his rules, but, un-censored expletive! I am not joking when I say that I am majorly disappointed by this turn of events!

Would anyone like to join me in shouting the word "Transparency!" from the Piano World rooftops? Criminently!!!

I would rather have a hot discussion thread about the degradation of discourse than a machine making my writing choices!
Posted by: sandalholme

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 04:35 AM

The owner of a web site can run it anyway s/he likes. What's the problem with that? It's not a cooperative venture. If a user - or all users - takes exception to how it's run, then people can vote with their feet. Rather ironic for me to make such a statement, which is consistent with our brave new Anglo-Saxon free market which is ruining the planet. I despise the free market jungle and the deceit of globalisation which just enriches the already rich and in fact rather favour cooperative ventures, but this forum is a facility which has been made available for us to use: we don't co-own it.
We do have choices, but we have to decide which choices are available to us.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 04:41 AM

I would like to suggest that the auto-sensor automatically convert every mention of crescendo or decrescendo to "hairpin," because that's usually what people are actually talking about, and I think it's "dirty" to call them crescendos and decrescendos. smile
Posted by: R0B

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 04:46 AM

Yeah, and if it could automatically determine when a song is not a song, that would be heck good smirk
Posted by: landorrano

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 04:52 AM

Originally Posted By: sandalholme
The owner of a web site can run it anyway s/he likes.


True enough.

But the owner of this site gives the option to send a private message. It is the site that uses this formulation. To then intervene in private messages in any way is kind of pathetic.
Posted by: -Frycek

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 05:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
PW just gets better and better every day.

1+
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 05:37 AM

May we ask, what precipitated this recent change? Was there some problem?

I'm actually even more concerned about this automatic censorship of the forums than of PM's (maybe because I don't PM). smile

And I hadn't noticed any problem with obscenities or anything like that on the forums.....I do notice occasionally that posts get edited by moderators for obscenity, but from what I ever saw, that seemed quite rare.

Let me give a professional opinion, which I don't think I've ever done before on here. It looks to me like the site is going slightly insane. smile
Posted by: wr

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 06:36 AM

Originally Posted By: sandalholme
The owner of a web site can run it anyway s/he likes. What's the problem with that? It's not a cooperative venture.


While it is obvious that the owner of a site can run it however they want, you are wrong about the cooperative aspect, because this site would be nothing without all the users. It definitely is a cooperative venture, even if the control mechanisms do not reside with the users. In case you haven't noticed, it is the users that are creating the content, not the site owner.



Posted by: Damon

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 07:46 AM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
Kind of ruined now though.


I only ever noticed a few questionable words from any forum member. Synonyms of urinate, defecate, and fornicate, mostly. So shut the fornicating up you urinating defecator. laugh
Posted by: GeorgeB

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 07:47 AM

lol i never receive PMs so i never get to experience this haha
Posted by: Piano*Dad

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 07:52 AM

Not a very effective censor, I might add. Of George Carlin's seven dirty words, it bleeps only three of them. smile
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 08:07 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
May we ask, what precipitated this recent change? Was there some problem?

Let me give a professional opinion, which I don't think I've ever done before on here. It looks to me like the site is going slightly insane. smile


The change isn't that recent. It happened about a year ago when the software was updated I think. Overall, censoring has been a welcome addition. We try to make sure the site has a PG rating, and since it was implemented, it's greatly reduced having to fix people's posts manually.

And the forums go predictably insane about once every year or so. It might interest you to know that it's fairly predictable, and the same things happen each time. New users mysteriously pop up, posts go quasi-viral with garbage, some people leave... The topics raised in this thread have also been raised before. PM privacy, the abilities of moderators, who the site really "belongs" to, etc...
Posted by: izaldu

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 08:43 AM

I just don ´t get how anyone can put "privacy" and "internet" in the same sentence. Or expect these two terms to be together. Please. I understand the banning of certain members may displease some , but come on.

Having said that, when changes such as these take place, maybe users should be informed. Although i don t see the big deal about swear words being erased. I swear way too much, and i definitely know it adds nothing good to my persona. Swearing is like smoking - we may enjoy it sometimes, but most times it s useless and plain SUCKS
Posted by: R0B

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 08:47 AM

Personally, I don't have a problem with censorship on this forum.
It is, in fact, a refreshing change to know that I can recommend anyone, be it a student,(who may well be a minor), or friend, to this forum, in the knowledge that they will not be offended, by the content.
I applaud the owner for keeping it this way, and respect his views, when stopping by, his 'house'.

If I want to converse, and I use the term loosely, in an 'adult' manner, with anyone, I would step outside of this 'house' and do so in private. PM's are not (necessarily) private, on any forum, so feel free to curse away to your heart's content, via email, Facebook, telephone, or wherever.

Posted by: Entheo

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 09:04 AM

folks, this is the INTERWEB and you should assume anything you post anywhere (yes, that includes your private emails) can be read by others (sysadmins etc.), the exception being TLS & SSL encrypted services.

forewarned is forearmed.
Posted by: gooddog

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:10 AM

Originally Posted By: Entheo
folks, this is the INTERWEB and you should assume anything you post anywhere (yes, that includes your private emails) can be read by others (sysadmins etc.), the exception being TLS & SSL encrypted services.

forewarned is forearmed.
thumb It's a good idea to view all of your internet posts as your public face. You never know if a potential employer can access what you post. I always question the anonymity of the internet. You never know....
Posted by: Orange Soda King

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:16 AM

Originally Posted By: gooddog
Originally Posted By: Entheo
folks, this is the INTERWEB and you should assume anything you post anywhere (yes, that includes your private emails) can be read by others (sysadmins etc.), the exception being TLS & SSL encrypted services.

forewarned is forearmed.
thumb It's a good idea to view all of your internet posts as your public face. You never know if a potential employer can access what you post. I always question the anonymity of the internet. You never know....


Right. I'm even careful about what I say in person, too!
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:23 AM

Originally Posted By: gooddog
It's a good idea to view all of your internet posts as your public face. You never know if a potential employer can access what you post. I always question the anonymity of the internet. You never know....

I'm certainly under no allusions. I do not accept Facebook friend requests from anyone at, or associated with, my place of employment- and that applies to my former employer in London. And NEVER do I mention anything work related in a newsfeed.

For all that, I certainly access Facebook at work (so does everyone else) along with PW of course. In fact, that's what I'm doing right now!

Here's a question for someone perhaps more familiar with forum software: when you delete PMs, are they really gone or still sitting around someplace?
Posted by: R0B

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:26 AM

Not 100% sure on that one, but if the recipient hasn't deleted it, also............
Posted by: TheHappyMoron

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:27 AM

Originally Posted By: izaldu
Swearing is like smoking - we may enjoy it sometimes, but most times it s useless and plain SUCKS


There's nothing like having a roll up and a cup of tea first thing in the morning! But after that it sort of loses its novelty.
Posted by: carey

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:32 AM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
May we ask, what precipitated this recent change? Was there some problem?

Let me give a professional opinion, which I don't think I've ever done before on here. It looks to me like the site is going slightly insane. smile


The change isn't that recent. It happened about a year ago when the software was updated I think. Overall, censoring has been a welcome addition. We try to make sure the site has a PG rating, and since it was implemented, it's greatly reduced having to fix people's posts manually.

And the forums go predictably insane about once every year or so. It might interest you to know that it's fairly predictable, and the same things happen each time. New users mysteriously pop up, posts go quasi-viral with garbage, some people leave... The topics raised in this thread have also been raised before. PM privacy, the abilities of moderators, who the site really "belongs" to, etc...


Thanks for the clarification.

As a long time government employee I learned to be very careful about what I said on the internet - including private e-mails. Anything you put out there can (and will) come back to haunt you !!
Posted by: Arghhh

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:35 AM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Orange Soda King
....I think censoring words on PW is new now....

OK -- that explains a little surprise I had yesterday.

I typed "heck" in a post yesterday but it came out as "heck."
Nothing like that ever happened before. I mean, I'm pretty sure I said "heck" a few times in the past and it always came out before as "heck," just the way I typed it, but this time it came out as "heck."

Edit: So.....they all came out as heck.
Not that I didn't expect it. ha

P.S. If anyone doesn't know what was the word that I typed instead of "heck"......well, that's easy -- just look it up in the dictionary under.....aah, what the heck, if I type it again I'm sure it'll just come out again as "heck".....

In fact, now you never know if someone said "heck" or "heck."
(Dam, 2 hecks again.) ha

BTW: For what it's worth, IMHO it would have been good to announce the new automatic censor when it was put in. Not that much of a big deal, but it would have been a 'nice touch' rather than making us be taken by surprise.


MarkC, thanks for the good laugh! That was a hilarious post!
Posted by: Orange Soda King

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:41 AM

The people that swear can still use "damn" and "damned."
Posted by: R0B

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:44 AM

Originally Posted By: Orange Soda King
The people that swear can still use "damn" and "damned."


Probably not for much longer smile
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:47 AM

Originally Posted By: R0B
Originally Posted By: Orange Soda King
The people that swear can still use "damn" and "damned."


Probably not for much longer smile

laugh , I didn't think this forum was that prudish.

(I just tried out a bunch of naughty words in preview. Interesting.)
Posted by: TheHappyMoron

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:49 AM

I'm now tempted to start writing random swear words to see which are censored and which aren't...but i'd better not just in case i get banned.
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:50 AM

Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
I'm now tempted to start writing random swear words to see which are censored and which aren't...but i'd better not just in case i get banned.

Do what I did above and try them out in preview without actually posting.
Posted by: R0B

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:51 AM

Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
I'm now tempted to start writing random swear words to see which are censored and which aren't...but i'd better not just in case i get banned.


You will find the censor has missed a few shocked
Posted by: izaldu

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:52 AM

I remember i was in a private forum with 10 or 15 friends , at the time, we all studied/worked in different countries. The forum admin was a friend too, and for a laugh he used the forum options to substitute words (swear words adn member 's names mostly) with other words. The results were absolutely hilarious.
Posted by: TheHappyMoron

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:53 AM

Hahaha! the censor has missed plenty!!! some pretty offensive ones too.
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:54 AM

Originally Posted By: Arghhh
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Orange Soda King
....I think censoring words on PW is new now....

OK -- that explains a little surprise I had yesterday.

I typed "heck" in a post yesterday but it came out as "heck."
Nothing like that ever happened before. I mean, I'm pretty sure I said "heck" a few times in the past and it always came out before as "heck," just the way I typed it, but this time it came out as "heck."

Edit: So.....they all came out as heck.
Not that I didn't expect it. ha

P.S. If anyone doesn't know what was the word that I typed instead of "heck"......well, that's easy -- just look it up in the dictionary under.....aah, what the heck, if I type it again I'm sure it'll just come out again as "heck".....

In fact, now you never know if someone said "heck" or "heck."
(Dam, 2 hecks again.) ha

BTW: For what it's worth, IMHO it would have been good to announce the new automatic censor when it was put in. Not that much of a big deal, but it would have been a 'nice touch' rather than making us be taken by surprise.


MarkC, thanks for the good laugh! That was a hilarious post!


Well, yeah, right; but enough of this heck-ling, OK, Mark? smile
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:55 AM

Originally Posted By: R0B

You will find the censor has missed a few shocked

I tried out a few Brit-usage examples. They were missed too!
Posted by: bitWrangler

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:28 AM

Originally Posted By: Entheo
folks, this is the INTERWEB and you should assume anything you post anywhere (yes, that includes your private emails) can be read by others (sysadmins etc.), the exception being TLS & SSL encrypted services.

forewarned is forearmed.


To clarify, TLS/SSL are only transport level security devices, so while they make prevent someone from "listening in", it doesn't say anything about the format on either end of the conversation. For example, while a website may use SSL to encrypt your personal information between your web browser and their web server, they could easily store the information as plain text on their servers not to mention that your web browser may be storing the values you entered for fields on that "encrypted" page as plain text on your computer.

Bottom line, just assume anything you do on your computer can compromised and you'll be fine wink
Posted by: sandalholme

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:34 AM

wr: in my book, cooperative - in the ownership sense - means co-owned. This site is not co-owned. We cooperate as users in terms of giving our views of our own free will and out of the goodness of our hearts - to help others and be helped by them. But it is not a cooperative. It is a facility, presumably sustained by advertising, that we use, but we are no more co-owners of it than customers are co-owners of supermarkets. And yes, I agree that it would be nothing without us. Neither would supermarkets.
Posted by: Entheo

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:52 AM

Originally Posted By: argerichfan
Here's a question for someone perhaps more familiar with forum software: when you delete PMs, are they really gone or still sitting around someplace?


usually, content that is 'deleted' isn't really, including stuff on your own machine (you'd pretty much have to reformat your HD to do that). and keep in mind that most everything on the interweb is chronologically backed up, so archives exist 'somewhere'.

Originally Posted By: bitWrangler
To clarify, TLS/SSL are only transport level security devices, so while they make prevent someone from "listening in", it doesn't say anything about the format on either end of the conversation.


quite true; thanks for clarifying bW
Posted by: Monica K.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
And the forums go predictably insane about once every year or so. It might interest you to know that it's fairly predictable, and the same things happen each time. New users mysteriously pop up, posts go quasi-viral with garbage, some people leave... The topics raised in this thread have also been raised before. PM privacy, the abilities of moderators, who the site really "belongs" to, etc...


I call it "silly season" on PW. I'm guessing it's not specific to PW but common in all forums. It's actually a fascinating phenomenon from a theoretical perspective: Is it just statistical clustering, i.e., a fluke due to the random distribution of internet trouble that coincides across threads? Or is it a social psychological phenomenon where a troll or flame war starts a snowballing effect until it spills over into other threads? It could make a great doctoral dissertation in communications, if anybody's looking for a topic. wink
Posted by: leemax

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:34 PM

Monica, I too think that forum dynamics are interesting. I was part of a completely different forum (not piano related) that went so crazy in the past couple of months that I finally quit logging on, and I will probably never go back there. Lots of drama, threads getting hijacked by the same bunch of idiots, people having multiple handles, terrible abuse, insults, profanity (no censoring of four-letter-words there!)moderators and a site admin who were completely oblivious or who just didn't care, etc.
I sometimes wonder if psychology or sociology classes plant a troll on a forum so they can then study the group dynamics that result.
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:38 PM

This is not from a year ago, believe me. Up until a few days ago I could type whatever the [censored] I want, and now it shows up as [censored]. [censored]! Actually maybe this IS [censored] better since I can type the [censored] word without having to [censored] edit it before posting on the forum.

But still, not cool to have PMs like that..
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:40 PM

And this time if we say to someone "you're full of [censored]" maybe we won't get banned?
Posted by: TheHappyMoron

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:40 PM

haha [censored] funny!
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 12:48 PM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
This is not from a year ago, believe me. Up until a few days ago I could type whatever the [censored] I want, and now it shows up as [censored]. [censored]! Actually maybe this IS [censored] better since I can type the [censored] word without having to [censored] edit it before posting on the forum.

But still, not cool to have PMs like that..

I hope Kreisler will note this closely, in view of his reply earlier. That's my strong impression too. Maybe the basic system got put in a year ago, but it seems it has become more stringent of late. (I wouldn't bet my string of poloponies on it ha but I'd bet one polopony.) The word I noticed being censored was only "aitch-ee-ell-ell," which is the only such word that I ever typed on here, and just a few times, and which I'm close to 100% sure never got changed to "heck" till the other day.

And also: It seems that a lot of people are still under the impression that the censor-thing applies only to PM's, which is incorrect.
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 01:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
And this time if we say to someone "you're full of [censored]" maybe we won't get banned?


I'm puzzled that some people think that the use of profanity in their writing makes their communication more effective.
Posted by: Entheo

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 01:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Monica K.
It could make a great doctoral dissertation in communications, if anybody's looking for a topic. wink


monica, already been done, in a most amusing format:

http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/
Posted by: carey

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 01:09 PM

As a military veteran I can (and often do) swear like a sailor - but am able to restrain myself when posting on the internet. We have a broad spectrum of folks participating in PW - and we should behave accordingly - which includes avoiding profanities and being civil to each other. So what's the big deal???? crazy
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 01:12 PM

Originally Posted By: carey
As a military veteran I can (and often do) swear like a sailor - but am able to restrain myself when posting on the internet. We have a broad spectrum of folks participating in PW - and we should behave accordingly - which includes avoiding profanities and being civil to each other. So what's the big deal???? crazy


I totally agree. It's mind-boggling. smile

-J
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 01:14 PM

Originally Posted By: beet31425
I totally agree. It's mind-boggling. smile

I wouldn't have minded as much (maybe not at all) if it had been announced and explained rather than having it take us by surprise.
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 01:21 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: beet31425
I totally agree. It's mind-boggling. smile

I wouldn't have minded as much (maybe not at all) if it had been announced and explained rather than having it take us by surprise.


Yes, I'd vote for more transparent communication from the moderators to the masses in general-- simple, clear statements about software changes, permanent and temporary bans, that sort of thing. But... their site, their rules. No problem with that.

-J
Posted by: carey

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 01:26 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: beet31425
I totally agree. It's mind-boggling. smile

I wouldn't have minded as much (maybe not at all) if it had been announced and explained rather than having it take us by surprise.


Understood.

I felt the same way recently when our health insurance plan (for which I pay an arm and leg every month) stopped covering "massage" in conjunction with chiropractic services - and didn't bother to notify us in advance. What a pain !! grin
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 01:56 PM

I was being sarcastic with my earlier post, FYI, and just as we should respect those who preach "proper and clean writing", we should respect the choice of those who like to express themselves in a different manner. It's a two way street.

Besides, there's no good word to substitute "[censored]!!!" when you happen to be particularly ticked off about something. And why should anyone take offense to that is beyond me. They're words, they're not directed AT anybody.

Plus, if I say "[censored] you" it can be just as offensive as being able to type the word itself. Moreover, it can even be MORE offensive because you don't exactly know what I wrote, but I'm sure you can let your imagination run wild... I honestly don't see the big deal; after all most of it is in good humour - a concept lost on some people.
Posted by: eweiss

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:04 PM

You can click on 'Quote' for any post you want to see the actual curse words on. For instance, click 'Quote' on Angie's post and you can read what she wrote verbatim.
Posted by: Steve Chandler

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:08 PM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
Plus, if I say "[censored] you" it can be just as offensive as being able to type the word itself. Moreover, it can even be MORE offensive because you don't exactly know what I wrote, but I'm sure you can let your imagination run wild... I honestly don't see the big deal; after all most of it is in good humour - a concept lost on some people.

Angelina, I just discovered something about the forum censoring software. It only applies to how it's viewed. If I want to know exactly what you said I just quote a reply and it will be there in the editing pane. Your words do not actually get changed in the archive, just how it's viewed in the forum. So I can truthfully respond I'd love to, but the age difference would be awkward.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:08 PM

Originally Posted By: eweiss
You can click on 'Quote' for any post you want to see the actual curse words on. For instance, click 'Quote' on Angie's post and you can read what she wrote verbatim.

Heck! I discovered that myself before when I quoted a post by Pogo.

And if people want to see what I really typed for that first word up there (where it says "heck"), all they have to do is look..... smile
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:10 PM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
I honestly don't see the big deal.


That's exactly how I feel about the other side of the argument. The world isn't going to end because someone can't say **** in a PM on an internet forum. smirk
Posted by: carey

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
I was being sarcastic with my earlier post, FYI, and just as we should respect those who preach "proper and clean writing", we should respect the choice of those who like to express themselves in a different manner. It's a two way street.



Isn't it really more about what is "appropriate" for a forum in which 12 and 13 year olds sometimes participate ??
Posted by: TheHappyMoron

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:19 PM

Originally Posted By: carey
Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
I was being sarcastic with my earlier post, FYI, and just as we should respect those who preach "proper and clean writing", we should respect the choice of those who like to express themselves in a different manner. It's a two way street.



Isn't it really more about what is "appropriate" for a forum in which 12 and 13 year olds sometimes participate ??


Not just 12 and 13 year olds but people in general who find such language offensive.
Posted by: TheHappyMoron

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:20 PM

Just for the record i couldn't care less, but i try to save using bad language for my friends who also don't care and avoid using in front of people who do.
Posted by: carey

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:21 PM

Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
Originally Posted By: carey
Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
I was being sarcastic with my earlier post, FYI, and just as we should respect those who preach "proper and clean writing", we should respect the choice of those who like to express themselves in a different manner. It's a two way street.



Isn't it really more about what is "appropriate" for a forum in which 12 and 13 year olds sometimes participate ??


Not just 12 and 13 year olds but people in general who find such language offensive.


True.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:45 PM

Originally Posted By: BruceD
I'm puzzled that some people think that the use of profanity in their writing makes their communication more effective.

That's actually a more interesting subject than might meet the eye. smile

First of all I imagine you'd say the same thing about using it in their speaking too.
So let's talk about the whole thing.....

Maybe this will be taking what you said too literally, but you're implying that the only reason to do or not do something in communication is for "effectiveness." How about for expressing oneself, and for the feeling that you get from expressing it a certain way? (and avoiding the stifling effect of being inhibited from expressing a feeling)? I would suggest that this is also a strong reason for ways of communicating. We might disagree on how large a portion that should be, but if you disagree that it's any portion, IMO you would be mistaken.

Once we acknowledge that this reason is also in there, to any extent, the subject becomes up for grabs.

P.S. For what it's worth, in "The King's Speech," the ability to let loose with obscenities was portrayed as being important (or at least not irrelevant) to his getting over his problem -- and I agree with that, although this can be taken to simplistic extremes -- and, by extension, we might say that in general, overly inhibiting such communication isn't good for the human condition. Sure, lines need to be drawn. But IMO it doesn't make it to say flat-out that there's no good reason for such expressiveness.
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:49 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: eweiss
You can click on 'Quote' for any post you want to see the actual curse words on. For instance, click 'Quote' on Angie's post and you can read what she wrote verbatim.

Heck! I discovered that myself before when I quoted a post by Pogo.

And if people want to see what I really typed for that first word up there (where it says "heck"), all they have to do is look..... smile


LOL It is true... shocked This way people will notice swearing even more because they will be curious and quote passages to know what the word was...
Posted by: eweiss

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:54 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: BruceD
I'm puzzled that some people think that the use of profanity in their writing makes their communication more effective.

That's actually a more interesting subject than might meet the eye. smile

It's a great subject. If we're talking about 'communication' and getting meaning across, then I'd say slang can say more in one word than an author can elegantly write in a few sentences.

That said, this is a public forum. smile
Posted by: leemax

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 02:55 PM

I agree with Mr. Haddock, in that I really have nothing against foul language, but I reserve my use of it for when I'm alone or with someone who I know will not be offended by it and who can understand the spirit in which I'm using it. I'm also happy to not see it on internet forums (fora?) because there already is too much drama and uncivil behavior, and foul language especially without benefit of any non-verbal cues, only tends to fan the flames.
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 03:02 PM

Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
...i couldn't care less...


While we're on the subject of language, THANK YOU for getting this phrase correct. It's one of my pet peeves. laugh
Posted by: Devane

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 03:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
...i couldn't care less...


While we're on the subject of language, THANK YOU for getting this phrase correct. It's one of my pet peeves. laugh


David Mitchell - Dear America...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=om7O0MFkmpw&t=0m55s

The graph is hilarious.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 03:17 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
...i couldn't care less...
While we're on the subject of language, THANK YOU for getting this phrase correct. It's one of my pet peeves. laugh

Was one of mine too, till I realized (I think) the probable origin of the other way: sarcasm. (It works perfectly if considered that way.)

Which in fact is the tone in which it is usually stated, although I don't think the user is usually thinking of the wording as sarcastic rather than literal.

Just a thought. smile
Posted by: carey

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 03:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
...i couldn't care less...


While we're on the subject of language, THANK YOU for getting this phrase correct. It's one of my pet peeves. laugh


Folks who get this wrong are simply being "careless."
Posted by: lilylady

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 03:43 PM

In everyday live communication, I, and some friends, might let loose.

But on a public forum, I don't see the need.

A recently banned young one used the f word in two subsequent posts. It was so not needed. And not welcome on a forum such as this. That word was NOT substituted. But should have been.

PM's though area a different matter.

On the forum itself, h... should not have a substitute word. 'Censored' as a replacement is perfect and probably relieves those on duty to have to do it for each post.



Posted by: TheHappyMoron

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 03:45 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
...i couldn't care less...


While we're on the subject of language, THANK YOU for getting this phrase correct. It's one of my pet peeves. laugh


You're welcome!
Posted by: apple*

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 03:46 PM

just guessing a list of censored words

[censored]
[censored]
[censored]
[censored]
[censored]
[censored]
[censored]
[censored]
[censored]
[censored]
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 03:47 PM

My whole point is that people are overreacting way too much.. As if 12 and 13 year olds never heard those words before. Oh well, the original point was PMs, which should not be censored seeing how they're not public. Hence you should get rid of the whole thing, since it affects PMs too. I never thought "bad" or "foul" language was a problem in the public forums in the first place.. People usually put signs or don't do it at all.
Posted by: Andromaque

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 03:59 PM

Funny side note as to the linguistic aspect of profanities: I can swear pretty "good" in English, may be not as good as carey, but still.. Of course I do it infrequently, never in writing, and it usually happens in the face of repetitive idiocy.. But, English is not my first language (something like third), and I would be dead or tomato red if swearing or cursing in these other languages I am fluent in. It is funny: cursing in English does vent out some steam but the social stigma and etiquette associated with poor language do not carry over, it would seem..

As for censorship, I am allergic to it in general. But I definitely do not enjoy reading profanities. So a way to curtail that, be it manually or grossly via substitution, is acceptable.

However, and I do repeat myself, transparency in policing is important.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 04:06 PM

Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
...i couldn't care less...
While we're on the subject of language, THANK YOU for getting this phrase correct. It's one of my pet peeves. laugh
You're welcome!

LOLOLOL!!!
Even though back in the day I was a 'spelling bee champ' (which isn't worth the paper it's not printed on) ha I only just recently learned that it's not your welcome. smile
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 04:11 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
...i couldn't care less...


While we're on the subject of language, THANK YOU for getting this phrase correct. It's one of my pet peeves. laugh


Well I could care less about that....

(No really: I care about it a fair amount, so it's possible for me to care less....)

-J
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 04:28 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
...i couldn't care less...
While we're on the subject of language, THANK YOU for getting this phrase correct. It's one of my pet peeves. laugh
You're welcome!

LOLOLOL!!!
Even though back in the day I was a 'spelling bee champ' (which isn't worth the paper it's not printed on) ha I only just recently learned that it's not your welcome. smile


- Thanks!
- You're welcome!
- but, alas, your welcome does not sound sincere!

... and while we're on the subject:
How many times have I had to bite my electronic tongue to prevent myself from pedantically correcting those who use apostrophe + s to make the plural of a noun?
"She has three piano's in her studio."
"Beethoven wrote thirty-two sonata's."
Posted by: Kreisler

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 04:41 PM

Originally Posted By: Andromaque
However, and I do repeat myself, transparency in policing is important.


For what it's worth, I agree. When I edit posts, I always leave it "marked as edited" with a brief reason why it was done.

And for the actions taken by the admins, I try to offer explanation here when asked. Assuming I know the answer - in a number of recent threads, I get the feeling people think I know a lot more than I do. I don't commit much PW history to memory, nor do I read every post in every topic. Every now and then, people say stuff like "but last August, member X told member Y that blah blah blah and he wasn't punished, yet now member Y tells member Z that his face looks stupid and he gets his hand slapped." To be honest, I have no idea what happened last August on the forums, nor do I keep track of who said what to whom. I simply don't have the time, energy, or interest!

That being said, the admins do post about actions taken in the moderators' forum, so that's where I get my info. I don't read the moderators' forum daily, so I'm usually a couple days behind on the news.

Also, I do take concerns from members and post about them in the moderators' forum just in case they're not reading it firsthand here.
Posted by: Horowitzian

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 04:42 PM

Originally Posted By: carey
Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
I was being sarcastic with my earlier post, FYI, and just as we should respect those who preach "proper and clean writing", we should respect the choice of those who like to express themselves in a different manner. It's a two way street.



Isn't it really more about what is "appropriate" for a forum in which 12 and 13 year olds sometimes participate ??




As a moderator on a forum for a certain online, browser based first person shooter that is primarily played by that demographic I can honestly say the problem lies less in abject bad language but in immature jokes and the like.

If you wanna see BAD language, try any M-rated video game out there and listen/watch the chat in online play. sick
Posted by: BruceD

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 05:00 PM

There are different levels of language that can be appropriately used in a public forum and none of them needs to be formal. When it comes to the use of profanity, I can't determine whether it's an indifference, in some posters' posture, to the the sensibilities of others or whether it's a certain amount of pride in projecting a foul-mouthed persona. I probably need to repeat that I'm referring to postings on a public "family-friendly" forum. The fact that the innocent and/or naive may already have heard such profanities seems to be little justification for their use in a context such as this.

Regards,
Posted by: TheHappyMoron

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 05:11 PM

The one i can never get my head around is whether to use "who" or "whom".
Posted by: carey

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 05:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
My whole point is that people are overreacting way too much.. As if 12 and 13 year olds never heard those words before. Oh well, the original point was PMs, which should not be censored seeing how they're not public. Hence you should get rid of the whole thing, since it affects PMs too. I never thought "bad" or "foul" language was a problem in the public forums in the first place.. People usually put signs or don't do it at all.


Of course the vast majority of 12 and 13 year olds have heard those words before. It was no different when I was that age 50 years ago. The point is, however, that youngsters and the easily offended don't expect to be subjected to profanity on a family-oriented public forum that discusses pianos and piano playing. We should be sensitive to that.

I concur with you, however, that PMs between consenting adults are a different animal......not that I, personally, have ever used profanity in a PM... smile

Posted by: Damon

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 05:30 PM

Originally Posted By: BruceD
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
...i couldn't care less...
While we're on the subject of language, THANK YOU for getting this phrase correct. It's one of my pet peeves. laugh
You're welcome!

LOLOLOL!!!
Even though back in the day I was a 'spelling bee champ' (which isn't worth the paper it's not printed on) ha I only just recently learned that it's not your welcome. smile


- Thanks!
- You're welcome!
- but, alas, your welcome does not sound sincere!

... and while we're on the subject:
How many times have I had to bite my electronic tongue to prevent myself from pedantically correcting those who use apostrophe + s to make the plural of a noun?
"She has three piano's in her studio."
"Beethoven wrote thirty-two sonata's."


One that constantly drives me crazy is people that say "for free". I got this for free. Well, no you didn't.
Posted by: Orange Soda King

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 05:37 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
it's not your welcome. smile


When people say that, I say "What about my welcome?" laugh
Posted by: leemax

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 05:39 PM

I checked with Wikipedia, and this should clear up the "who vs. whom" problem once and for all:

"Traditionally, who is the subjective (nominative) form only. According to traditional prescriptive grammar, who is a subjective pronoun (subject of the side clause), and whom is the corresponding objective and dative pronoun (an object of the side clause). See also: English declension."

There will be a test . . .
Posted by: Ralph

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 05:58 PM

Of the 7 dirty words you cannot say on TV, 4 of them are possible to post.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_dirty_words
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 06:07 PM

Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
The one i can never get my head around is whether to use "who" or "whom".

IMO that's extra tough because, due to usage and realities of contemporary culture, you have to sometimes break the rule or else you'll sound ponderous and absurd. I know the rule but often break it on purpose to avoid sounding like an a---hole
(BTW, let's see if that gets past the censor) ha ....which I think we do sound like if we compulsively follow the rule. IMO it depends on the situation, and we should feel free to use our judgment.

Take this to the bank: before too many more decades, the "rule" will change. IMO for all intents and purposes it already has.

P.S. "All intensive purposes" is another one.
But really the phrase is so hackneyed that we probably shouldn't use it at all, even correctly.
I have half a mind to whip myself with a wet noodle for it.
And actually I just used 2 more cliches that one shouldn't. smile
Posted by: stores

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 06:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
This is not from a year ago, believe me. Up until a few days ago I could type whatever the [censored] I want, and now it shows up as [censored]. [censored]! Actually maybe this IS [censored] better since I can type the [censored] word without having to [censored] edit it before posting on the forum.

But still, not cool to have PMs like that..


Hahahaha! I know you're frustrated, but this is awesome.

By the way, if you REPLY to a specific post all the censored words appear. I seeeeee what you said Pogo! =p
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 07:30 PM

Precisely why it's actually worse, stores!! The old way you couldn't see the word because there was nothing to be censored!!
[censored] damn!
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 07:43 PM

What the hell-- I figured out a clever way around it! smile

(hehe... hope that doesn't get me into trouble...)

-Jason
Posted by: Monica K.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:24 PM

Originally Posted By: leemax
I checked with Wikipedia, and this should clear up the "who vs. whom" problem once and for all:

"Traditionally, who is the subjective (nominative) form only. According to traditional prescriptive grammar, who is a subjective pronoun (subject of the side clause), and whom is the corresponding objective and dative pronoun (an object of the side clause). See also: English declension."

There will be a test . . .





LOL! Or, you can do what I do, which is to substitute "he" or "him," see which one sounds best, and go with the corresponding "who" vs. "whom." For example, if you wanted to decide between "who ordered the steak?" vs. "whom ordered the steak?", you'd try "he ordered the steak" vs. "him ordered the steak." Very easy: It's obviously "he"/"who". To decide between "the steak was ordered by who" vs. "the steak was ordered by whom," you'd compare "the steak was ordered by he" vs. "the steak was ordered by him." "Whom" wins.
Posted by: Andromaque

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:24 PM

Kreisler,
Thanks for acknowledging the request for transparency, and explaining the layers beneath it.
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:48 PM

Originally Posted By: beet31425
What the hell-- I figured out a clever way around it! smile

(hehe... hope that doesn't get me into trouble...)

-Jason


... how! I can't figure it out!

Edit: Hahahahah.. clever!
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:49 PM

Originally Posted By: beet31425
What the hell....

What the heck is "aitch-ee-one-one"? Any relation to obee-one-kenobee? smile

(BTW I'm assuming those are two "1's" even though my computer seems to be telling me they're not....)
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:53 PM

No they're not, it's even more clever than that..
Posted by: apple*

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:55 PM

odd... that i just wrote a pm with a censored word.

ha ha .. i am bad!
Posted by: rocket88

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:55 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: beet31425
What the hell....

What the heck is "aitch-ee-one-one"? Any relation to obee-one-kenobee? smile

(BTW I'm assuming those are two "1's" even though my computer seems to be telling me they're not....)


They are things that look like 1.
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:57 PM

Nope that's totally not it.. this is fun! (and btw, it works with ANY "censored" word)
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 10:59 PM

I'll tell you guys I did it... but Angelina, I'm surprised you reverse-engineered it... just because I have no idea how I would have reversed engineered it if someone else did it! (Do you have a programming background?)

-J
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:01 PM

hell

Yeah, it works!
Posted by: Cinnamonbear

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:04 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
[...]I know the rule but often break it on purpose to avoid sounding like an a---hole[...]


Mark,

I think I can help you with your grammar, here. In American English, it would be "a hole." In British English, it would be "an hole." You don't have to use both "an" and "a" at the same time, 'cuz now you know!
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:04 PM

Originally Posted By: ChopinAddict
hell

Yeah, it works!

DAM! How are y'all doing it? ha

BTW....I'm just being rhetorical. I don't need you to reveal the secret.....I'm more just marveling at what you're doing.

Sort of like with magic tricks. We don't necessarily really WANT to know how they're done.

It's weird....in the post, they look like lower-case L's, but when we hit "quote," they look like ones....
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:06 PM

Originally Posted By: Cinnamonbear
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
[...]I know the rule but often break it on purpose to avoid sounding like an a---hole[...]

Mark,

I think I can help you with your grammar, here. In American English, it would be "a hole." In British English, it would be "an hole." You don't have to use both "an" and "a" at the same time, 'cuz now you know!

Thank you very much!!

Now please tell me how to avoid being an a$$. smile
Posted by: Damon

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: beet31425
What the hell....

What the heck is "aitch-ee-one-one"? Any relation to obee-one-kenobee? smile

(BTW I'm assuming those are two "1's" even though my computer seems to be telling me they're not....)


The "e" is not an "e"
Posted by: Cinnamonbear

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:09 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Cinnamonbear
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
[...]I know the rule but often break it on purpose to avoid sounding like an a---hole[...]

Mark,

I think I can help you with your grammar, here. In American English, it would be "a hole." In British English, it would be "an hole." You don't have to use both "an" and "a" at the same time, 'cuz now you know!

Thank you very much!!

Now please tell me now to avoid being an a$$. smile


Physician, heal thyself! grin
Posted by: currawong

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:13 PM

Originally Posted By: Kreisler
Originally Posted By: TheCannibalHaddock
...i couldn't care less...
While we're on the subject of language, THANK YOU for getting this phrase correct. It's one of my pet peeves. laugh
thumb Mine too. It's really unusual to hear the "could" version in Australia, incidentally. I'd never come across it until I came to PW.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:14 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: beet31425
What the hell....
What the heck is "aitch-ee-one-one"? Any relation to obee-one-kenobee? smile

(BTW I'm assuming those are two "1's" even though my computer seems to be telling me they're not....)

The "e" is not an "e"

It's not????

You puttin' me on??? ha

(My computer seems to be saying that at least in the post itself, it is.)

Anyway, I do know that in some way or another, "the hand is quicker than the eye."

P.S. Just a thought: Are y'all maybe doing it with "Taubman rotation" or something.....
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:15 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: ChopinAddict
hell

Yeah, it works!

DAM! How are y'all doing it? ha



Like that:
DΑMN

I will stop here though... I don't want to get in trouble...
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:20 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: beet31425
What the hell....
What the heck is "aitch-ee-one-one"? Any relation to obee-one-kenobee? smile

(BTW I'm assuming those are two "1's" even though my computer seems to be telling me they're not....)

The "e" is not an "e"

It's not????

You puttin' me on??? ha

(My computer seems to be saying that at least in the post itself, it is.)

Anyway, I do know that in some way or another, "the hand is quicker than the eye."

P.S. Just a thought: Are y'all maybe doing it with "Taubman rotation" or something.....


It's really easy (if you accepted PMs I would tell you), but we'd better go back to the piano now... Actually it is my guitar time right now...
Posted by: Damon

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:24 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: beet31425
What the hell....
What the heck is "aitch-ee-one-one"? Any relation to obee-one-kenobee? smile

(BTW I'm assuming those are two "1's" even though my computer seems to be telling me they're not....)

The "hell" is not an "heck"

It's not????


Quote it and look closer.
Posted by: beet31425

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:25 PM

Actually, now I'm not sure how everyone else is doing it. The method I have is a little tricky, and not that easily adaptable. "DAMN" doesn't get censored, so that's not proof you're really doing it....

And yes, the "e"'s are the same, the "l"'s are the same, etc. (The way I did it, actually, was to insert an "invisible" character between two of the letters, so my "hell", which really contains five characters, doesn't match what the censor is looking for.)

By the way... see that slight line break in the paragraph above? That's an artifact of my invisible character. There's probably a better way to do this, that won't create a line break.

-Jason
Posted by: R0B

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:32 PM

Originally Posted By: beet31425
What the hell-- I figured out a clever way around it! smile

(hehe... hope that doesn't get me into trouble...)

-Jason


Jason is a 'font' of knowledge wink
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:33 PM

It doesn't get censored? I thought it would because Mark had written DAM...

I had just used a letter that was not what it seemed to be...
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:36 PM

Well, I just tried another word (the word that triggered this thread), and it works perfectly (from the Preview)... The trick is that appearances can be deceptive.
Posted by: Damon

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:39 PM

There is another artifact on the "e" when you quote it. I thought you found one in the charmap.
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:40 PM

The only thing about this that's simple is: We're all going to be banned. ha
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:40 PM

Originally Posted By: Damon
There is another artifact on the "e" when you quote it. I thought you found one in the charmap.


Yes, that's how I did it... I used the charmap...

PS: I think it is time we start to be good...
Posted by: Damon

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:46 PM

Originally Posted By: ChopinAddict
Originally Posted By: Damon
There is another artifact on the "e" when you quote it. I thought you found one in the charmap.


Yes, that's how I did it... I used the charmap...


OK then, now we all know how to curse again. Another example of man's yearning to be free!
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:50 PM

Well, we can also curse the nice way:
cursing
What is meant is clear anyway...
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:53 PM

Originally Posted By: Mark_C
The only thing about this that's simple is: We're all going to be banned. ha


Hahahahaha... may be true, but at least it's been fun!
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:54 PM

Originally Posted By: beet31425
I'll tell you guys I did it... but Angelina, I'm surprised you reverse-engineered it... just because I have no idea how I would have reversed engineered it if someone else did it! (Do you have a programming background?)

-J


Ah, I can hack most of anything.. wink
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/07/11 11:58 PM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
Ah, I can hack most of anything.. wink

You might be able to get a day job with Julian Assange! ha
Posted by: Cinnamonbear

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/08/11 12:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Damon
Originally Posted By: ChopinAddict
Originally Posted By: Damon
There is another artifact on the "e" when you quote it. I thought you found one in the charmap.


Yes, that's how I did it... I used the charmap...


OK then, now we all know how to curse again. Another example of man's yearning to be free!


Indeed, Damon. And that is what bothers me so much about a nameless someone re-writing my posts. It is so... heavy handed, authoritarian, and dictatorial.

Anybody remember "Babe: The Gallant Pig?"
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/08/11 12:05 AM

Mark_C: He's a babe!
Posted by: argerichfan

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/08/11 12:37 AM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
Mark_C: He's a babe!

Oops, for a moment I thought you meant Justin Bieber.

laugh
Posted by: Mark_C

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/08/11 03:04 AM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
....He's a babe!

Maybe, but try to stay away from him. ha
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/08/11 09:24 AM

Haha, Jason - you know I didn't know who Justin Bieber was until a few days ago. My only reaction was "WTF?"
Posted by: Devane

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/08/11 09:24 AM

Bypassing a filter is child's play. Coincidently "Child's play" is also where you learn to curse.
Posted by: Orange Soda King

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/08/11 10:33 AM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
Haha, Jason - you know I didn't know who Justin Bieber was until a few days ago. My only reaction was "WTF?"


Yeah, when I found out about him, I was like "Oh, another mainstream pop singer. Moving on..." And I hear so much about people bashing him. I don't really care for making fun of him or bashing him in the same way that I don't care to listen to his music. It just doesn't appeal to me.

Musically speaking, I do have a couple guilty pleasures that would maybe be a "disgrace" to mention on a classical piano forum! Lol...

EDIT Okay, I'll share one with you guys. smile
Click to reveal.. (Get ready for it!!)


Posted by: Orange Soda King

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/08/11 10:36 AM

Originally Posted By: ChopinAddict
Originally Posted By: Mark_C
Originally Posted By: ChopinAddict
hell

Yeah, it works!

DAM! How are y'all doing it? ha



Like that:
DΑMN

I will stop here though... I don't want to get in trouble...


That word is not censored, though. At least, it wasn't when I demonstrated a day or two ago.

But besides that demonstration, I have no use for that word, or any other swear word.
Posted by: ChopinAddict

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/08/11 03:23 PM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
Haha, Jason - you know I didn't know who Justin Bieber was until a few days ago. My only reaction was "WTF?"


I didn't know either...

And I heard of "Australian Idol" in its 7th year!! Just the year they stopped it I think. blush
Posted by: 88Key_PianoPlayer

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/15/11 01:42 AM

I haven't ventured in here in a while, but found this thread via a search (after seeing a thread in either the Piano or Piano Tech forum on Transparency on PW), and seeing as it's still somewhat recent, I'll contribute a couple thoughts...

For me, personally, I'm ok with the careful and occasional use of words that may be considered "profanity", in some cases. I wouldn't use them willy nilly (not sure if that's gonna get censored here, and I hope you all will understand what I mean when using it (another forum I participate in DOES censor the "w" word), though. As far as I know, I don't think there's any word that I would consider to be ALWAYS offensive, for myself at least.
Of course, though, I will usually do my best to respect others that don't care for those words, although sometimes I can slip. smile

Also, some places I've seen censorship, it's been interesting, especially on the Zynga (facebook games) forums - words that I know have normal perfectly fine uses are censored there. Examples include a 3-letter word beginning with "g" that has meant "happy", a 5-letter word beginning with "p" that's another way to say "cat", a 4-letter word beginning with "d" that's a nickname for Richard, a 4-letter word beginning with "c" that's a male chicken (as well as some other birds, and is used in some translations of the Bible), and I'm sure there are others I can't think of at the moment.

Also, on a tech-leaning IRC chat I sometimes participate in, certain cuss words are replaced with a particular person's name. And, in a first-person shooter game I often play, I remember playing on one game server several years ago on which certain words (especially body parts) were automatically replaced in the in-game text chat with their so-called "proper" terms in capital letters. And, a year or two ago on another game server (same game), I heard someone play a song over the microphone that was probably from the 1950s or so, containing the 6-letter "n" word, and in no way did I ever find anything offensive about the way that word was used.

Also, one of those 7 dirty words is quoted in Isaiah 36:12 (as well as another place I can't remember at the moment) in the King James Bible. (BTW if something, or its subject matter or anything remotely similar, appears in the Bible, then due to the respect I have for that book (although I will say I often fail at actually doing what it teaches), it automatically makes those types of words non-offensive for me.)

Last but not least, one thing that does annoy me about such language is when people take formerly perfectly legitimate words, and change their meaning so now we have to be careful saying them anymore. mad


.

.

.



Now for something that's (hopefully) on a gayer (the original meaning of the word) note ... wink

...

What did the fish say when he swam into a wall?
Posted by: Monica K.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/15/11 12:27 PM

Okay, I'll bite: What DID the fish say when it swam into a wall? wink

As for profanity, I had a brief but impassioned argument with my 15 year old daughter, who insisted that the word that begins with p and rhymes with "brick" is acceptable slang that she could use despite her tender years, and I told her that it most definitely was not. I won. smokin
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/15/11 01:04 PM

What's wrong with "prick"? Lots of people fit that category.. =)
Posted by: bluekeys

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/15/11 01:17 PM

To quote George Carlin re what's ok to say on TV: "You can prick your finger, but you can't finger your...."
Posted by: liszt85

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/15/11 01:46 PM

Originally Posted By: Pogorelich.
What's wrong with "prick"? Lots of people fit that category.. =)


laugh You're funny.
Posted by: 88Key_PianoPlayer

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/15/11 04:55 PM

There's another word that got twisted to have a "bad" meaning, bluekeys - prick (afaik poking someone/something with a sharp instrument enough to leave a mark). shocked In my post above I mentioned that's something I really wish wouldn't happen. Words like gay (happy), pussy (a cat), Dick (nickname for Richard), cock (male chicken, also some other birds) also have different meanings that as far as I'm aware are perfectly acceptable in general all-ages conversation, shown in the parentheses after each word. Also the word piss appears twice in the King James Bible, hell and damn (or various forms of it) appear more times than I think I could count, and cock is in there too (one place being where Jesus told Peter the cock would not crow till Peter had denied Jesus); due to my respect for the Bible none of those words are offensive to me, especially the way they're used there. (I'm not even offended by passages in some of the prophets that use sexual imagery, or some graphic descriptions of battle scenes and other things, but for the sake of the youngsters here I'm not going to narrow down any further where they are or what they say at this time, unless requested.)

P.S. I hope due to the way the words are used, my post is not offensive. It is not intended to be - I was just trying to point out that those words have not always had bad uses. (IMO, if they always have been bad, they would not have been put in the Bible, even if said translation including one of the 7 dirty words was originally translated around 1611 AD.)
Posted by: Akira

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/15/11 05:26 PM

Quote:
Okay, I understand public forums being "censored". But private messages, really? That's so unfair. I have friends here that I would like to talk to freely and vent with - and I can't! Noody sees these messages anyway, what's the problem?

Freedom of speech...?


Here is a perspective you may not have considered.

When you are here, it is not dissimilar to being at someone's house. There are rules to which you must abide. If the owner does not approve of how you behave, you may be ejected and your "welcome" status will be revoked. The rules are designed for the benefit of the entire community. Not everyone will agree with them, but they must be followed to retain your welcome status.

Freedome of speech? Not exactly. You cannot say anything you want, claiming freedom of speech -- just the same as you can't yell "I have a bomb on an airplane." That's the purpose of the profanity filters. They are a gentle reminder that your are crossing the line that the forum administrator have drawn (i.e. the "rules").

You erroneously think a PM is to communicate privately amongst friends and while this is true most of the time, a PM can also be sent to a total stranger threatening to cut their throat. Of course that is an extreme example, but the rules that apply to the public area also apply to the private area as well. I believe this software design is well thought out and the fact that the filters apply to public and private areas is very intentional, for the reasons I mentioned above.

It's okay if you want to tell me to lighten up. Just wanted to share a perspective you may not yet have considered. smile

Here are the forum rules, for your reference.
Quote:
Considering the real-time nature of this message board, it is impossible for us to review messages or confirm the validity of information posted. Please remember that we do not actively monitor the contents of posted messages and are not responsible for any messages posted. We do not vouch for or warrant the accuracy, completeness or usefulness of any message, and are not responsible for the contents of any message. The messages express the views of the author of the message, not necessarily the views of this BB or any entity associated with this BB. Any user who feels that a posted message is objectionable is encouraged to contact us immediately by email. We have the ability to remove objectionable messages and we will make every effort to do so, within a reasonable time frame, if we determine that removal is necessary. This is a manual process, however, so please realize that we may not be able to remove or edit particular messages immediately. You agree, through your use of this service, that you will not use this BB to post any material which is knowingly false and/or defamatory, inaccurate, abusive, vulgar, hateful, harassing, obscene, profane, sexually oriented, threatening, invasive of a person's privacy, or otherwise violative of any law. You agree not to post any copyrighted material unless the copyrighted material is owned by you. We reserve the right to use any messages posted in other areas of our Web sites. Although we do not and cannot review the messages posted and are not responsible for the content of any of these messages, we reserve the right to delete any message for any reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages, and you agree to indemnify and hold us harmless with respect to any claim based upon transmission of your messagearray(s). We reserve the right to reveal your identity array(or whatever information we know about you) in the event of a complaint or legal action arising from any message posted by you.
Posted by: 88Key_PianoPlayer

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/15/11 05:31 PM

Originally Posted By: Akira
Freedome of speech? Not exactly. You cannot say anything you want, claiming freedom of speech -- just the same as you can't yell "I have a bomb on an airplane." That's the purpose of the profanity filters. They are a gentle reminder that your are crossing the line that the forum administrator have drawn (i.e. the "rules").


That got me thinking... I understand laptop computers are allowed as carry-ons on aircraft, but... I wonder how well it would go over if several people that were (maybe NOT) sitting together (if there was a way they could wirelessly network - maybe WiFi? some airlines have that, I think) started playing Counter-Strike: Source together, using speakers instead of headphones, and communicating over in-game voice chat? wink
Posted by: Pogorelich.

Re: Private Messages - censored? - 03/15/11 06:34 PM

Do lighten up, will ya?