![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 2 to 26 of 27. Go back in thread:
Posted by notfred on March 11, 2007, at 0:29:39
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow » notfred, posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2007, at 21:53:51
> The issue may be whether a PBC is still appropriate, even if the auto * feature places the * incorrectly, when the word used is commonly known to be vulgar. In the interest of consistency, I want to see if this has happened before.
>
Thanks for taking a look into this. I think the preview should display the post with the * feature, otherwise it is not much of a preview.
If people are to held to what is posted, even if the * system does not function, then the preview needs to reflect what the post will look like.
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 11, 2007, at 6:39:39
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow » notfred, posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2007, at 21:53:51
Historically, I am quite sure that you can only be PBC'd for bad language if you have the auto asterix feature turned *off*.. otherwsie, you're told that there is this safety feature so its OK to swear as it *will* be aut-asterixed. But when the system failed, the poster is punished.
Nikki
Posted by madeline on March 11, 2007, at 9:33:35
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow » notfred, posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2007, at 21:53:51
ummm, does this really need clarification? Why would it be the poster's fault if the auto-asterisk function didn't work correctly?
To quote the FAQ:
"If you have automatic asterisking turned on (and don't bypass it), the server takes care of potentially offensive language, but some unnecessary asterisking may occur. If you turn off automatic asterisking, you have more freedom to express yourself, but you're also responsible for your language."
This very clearly indicates that only when automatic asterisking is turned off is the poster responsible for their language.
And jackass is the name of a either a male *ss or donkey. It's like calling someone a dog or something.
Posted by Iwillsurvive on March 11, 2007, at 11:36:17
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow, posted by madeline on March 11, 2007, at 9:33:35
FWIT I have noticed that the auto asterisk seems to not block f*ck when its blended with another word.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2007, at 16:04:44
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow, posted by notfred on March 11, 2007, at 0:29:39
> Thanks for taking a look into this. I think the preview should display the post with the * feature, otherwise it is not much of a preview.It does, as far as I know. After you click "Submit your post." I wondered why you had to actually post 'jackass' to test it. All I do is go as far as the 'submit' point, to see if a word does/doesn't receive an asterisk, and then I know whether the system 'includes' it as offensive or not. My previews (just before you click 'Confirm your post') all insert the asterisks, and look exactly like the final post. Is it not working that way for everyone?
> If people are to held to what is posted, even if the * system does not function, then the preview needs to reflect what the post will look like.
Right.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2007, at 16:10:02
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow, posted by Iwillsurvive on March 11, 2007, at 11:36:17
Yup. I don't think it can handle any sort of compound words. It doesn't 'see' the word as the same word that way, and therefore leaves it alone. I don't think Dr. Bob is able to do a technical fix for that either, but I'm not 100% sure.
Posted by notfred on March 11, 2007, at 16:22:52
In reply to Re: compound words » Iwillsurvive, posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2007, at 16:10:02
>
> Yup. I don't think it can handle any sort of compound words. It doesn't 'see' the word as the same word that way, and therefore leaves it alone. I don't think Dr. Bob is able to do a technical fix for that either, but I'm not 100% sure.This is well within Perl's ability to pattern match. In fact, this is what Perl is really good at.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2007, at 16:40:24
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow, posted by madeline on March 11, 2007, at 9:33:35
> ummm, does this really need clarification?
For me it does, as I'm still a little unclear :-) Maybe I'm not the only one?
>>Why would it be the poster's fault if the auto-asterisk function didn't work correctly?
It's not the poster's fault if the function doesn't work correctly. I didn't mean to say that, if I did. (It makes no sense to me the way the system asterisked m*ther******. Looks pretty silly, actually, and needs to be fixed, if possible.) What I do think is the poster's responsibility, is to read each post prior to hitting the final 'Confirm this post' button, to see if they are within civility guidelines.
> To quote the FAQ:
>
> "If you have automatic asterisking turned on (and don't bypass it), the server takes care of potentially offensive language, but some unnecessary asterisking may occur. If you turn off automatic asterisking, you have more freedom to express yourself, but you're also responsible for your language."Right. My understanding of the phrase: "(and don't bypass it)" includes not using compound words containing vulgarities, as in this case, or brackets around letters, or anything else to "confuse" the system. In other words, you should 1.) leave it turned on, and 2.) not do anything to bypass it.
> This very clearly indicates that only when automatic asterisking is turned off is the poster responsible for their language.It's not as clear as that to me, but I'm sure Dr. Bob will eventually make it so. I want to know if I am misunderstanding the rule.
> And jackass is the name of a either a male *ss or donkey. It's like calling someone a dog or something.
Yeah, it's okay, apparently. As I told notfred, that was an oversight on my part. Once I tested that word, I meant to delete it from my PBC. I'm sorry if I caused any confusion by forgetting to do that.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2007, at 16:45:48
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow » 10derHeart, posted by NikkiT2 on March 11, 2007, at 6:39:39
I'm not so sure. As I posted to madeline, I understand the FAQ to mean you can't actively do anything to bypass the system either. But of course, I could be mistaken.
I'm also basing this on the fact that I (and at least one other deputy so far) seem to recall Dr. Bob warning people for bypassing the auto-asterisking system by posting different "forms" of offensive words.
Posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2007, at 16:50:32
In reply to Re: compound words, posted by notfred on March 11, 2007, at 16:22:52
>
> This is well within Perl's ability to pattern match. In fact, this is what Perl is really good at.I have no idea. Just guessing until Dr. Bob weighs in, based on the fact he needed to caution in the FAQ against "bypassing" the function. Perhaps he just hasn't had the time to refine it (can that be done?) to "catch" those things?
We will find out...eventually :-)
Posted by madeline on March 11, 2007, at 17:51:48
In reply to Re: compound words » notfred, posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2007, at 16:50:32
Do you think there was an attempt to bypass the auto - asterisking function here?
When I type the words in question, the server gives me the same asterisk in the same place.
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 11, 2007, at 18:18:04
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow » NikkiT2, posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2007, at 16:45:48
Yes, that would be by passing.
I don't see that ths person was bypassing. they simply chose a word that wasn't correctly auto-asterixed.
Others have been block-free for similar in the past.
Posted by NikkiT2 on March 11, 2007, at 18:21:24
In reply to Re: compound words » notfred, posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2007, at 16:50:32
I tend to not have time to do a perfect proof read each time I post.
Also, as with many others, I find it difficult to proof read what I have written, as your brain knows what it ~wants~ to see if that makes sense.
~That~ was one of the reasons for an automated system. It is *not* the posters fault if the system doesn't work.
Nikki
Posted by Honore on March 11, 2007, at 21:07:44
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow » NikkiT2, posted by 10derHeart on March 11, 2007, at 16:45:48
I could see a problem if someone was intentionally bypassing the system by using those words, but not if the person was unintentionally bypassing it, because they didn't know that those words wouldn't be caught.
Bob has said that we can't know people's intentions, so I don't think anyone should be penalized for this. At least without some other way of knowing why it was done.
Honore
Posted by Iwillsurvive on March 11, 2007, at 22:30:10
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow » 10derHeart, posted by Honore on March 11, 2007, at 21:07:44
kindof expire after a time????
They SHOULD.
Posted by Iwillsurvive on March 11, 2007, at 22:32:34
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen + xyibow » 10derHeart, posted by Honore on March 11, 2007, at 21:07:44
then it wouldn't be such a big deal.
Though many of us has 'shame' issues, so I guess you gotta consider that aspect...
Posted by Iwillsurvive on March 11, 2007, at 22:33:24
In reply to Cuz if they did expire, as they should,, posted by Iwillsurvive on March 11, 2007, at 22:32:34
f*ck this, I goto go.
Posted by yxibow on March 12, 2007, at 0:54:26
In reply to Please be civil - Jeroen xyibow, posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2007, at 17:27:15
> >>....they are m*----------- jac-------ses
>
> >>whether you think every doctor on the planet and Dr Bob is a "m------------king j---------"
>
> Please don't use language that could offend others, or bypass the automatic asterisking system to post forms of vulgar words (even if you are quoting someone else.)I beg to differ, I have the automatic asterisking system turned on. This is an example of a reactionary response as a deputy. I was merely, yes, quoting someone else and the asterisks are certainly turned on if you look at my post. Sometimes language is necessary to get a point across but that wasn't my point -- I was quoting what was already there.
It also wasn't meant in argument, but frustrative sense, if you have been following the board and the fact that I have gotten no concrete answer from Jeroen about his even having a doctor. So I simply wrote what I thought he should do in my opinion and I gave up.
Now please don't give me a please be civil of a triple quote of things, I put my heart into this board and rarely get things back because my disorder is so incredibly rare and different from other people's on here. That's fine. Its a place I come to during the day when I'm at my computer. I could be watching TiVo or doing something else. But I decide to come here, perhaps just because by voicing myself I get some extra therapy in.
I just checked again -- I've been having computer problems, and yes, my asterisking is turned on. I never bypassed anything.
Thirdly, I have totally blocked out all the letters in this posting because I think the political correctness towards me has gone towards sheer idiocy but I don't want to be banned from posting because I felt I was trying to help him. I have for several weeks and this is too draining. I don't need my good name sullied or "blocked" over this any more.
If Jeroen wants to talk about things in a practical sense, that involve, doctors, substances obtained in a legal manner in the EU, proper protocols, and yes, he can get angry about his disorder that is his right, then we have something to go on. Otherwise, well I'm kind of worried about his paranoia.-- good day
Posted by notfred on March 12, 2007, at 0:54:26
In reply to Re: their fault i have TD, so, i paid for brain da » Jeroen, posted by yxibow on March 10, 2007, at 16:59:12
jackass
jackasses
Posted by notfred on March 12, 2007, at 0:54:26
In reply to Please be civil - Jeroen xyibow, posted by 10derHeart on March 10, 2007, at 17:27:15
The auto * feature does not effect the word jackass.
Please retract this PBC.
Posted by yxibow on March 12, 2007, at 18:33:23
In reply to Re: Please be civil - Jeroen xyibow » 10derHeart, posted by notfred on March 10, 2007, at 21:07:25
I do realize that there have been established rules on this board so as to not offend others with their definition of coarse language.
I think this is perfectly fine when directed at someone or a direct response that essentially directed back "add name of previous poster."Maybe one's therapist has a different way of going about things though, but comments made in pure frustration about your own disorder and having nothing to do with other people I find some quandry about "language."
I'm actually often noted as being too mute in my sessions, not hurling enough of them perhaps, perhaps due to medicine, perhaps just by nature.
Sometimes a f* or the equivalent is elating when things have gone completely wrong that day or week.
And in these cases, where it isn't directed towards any one person but in fact is introspective, as long as it is blocked a little I suppose for the most purist of people, I don't think there should be a please be civil, because you're only being exasperated inward.
Like I could go on with several of them this week about my problems, but I'll pass on it almost for sake of fear of being blocked.
Posted by Phillipa on March 12, 2007, at 19:15:37
In reply to One further comment regards commenting out, posted by yxibow on March 12, 2007, at 18:33:23
As usual something I didn't know about the autoastericking. Love Phillipa
Posted by zazenduckie on March 12, 2007, at 23:17:16
f*ck·*r (f*k'*r) Pronunciation Key
n. Vulgar Slang1 A despised person.
2 One that engages in sexual intercourse.According to the American heritage dictionary these are the definitions of f*ck*r .
I direct your attention to definition number 2. Bob has previously ruled that he is not offended by a disparaging word (m*r*n) characterizing disabled people because the second definition did not refer to disabled people tho it remained unkind. He chose to override the American Heritage Dictionary and declare the term acceptable without asterisk. Why then is this word considered vulgar when the second definition is positively pleasant for many and surely inoffensive for all?
Yet when m*ther is added to the word all definitions are disparaging. So surely the asterisk should be in the maternal modifier.
I believe leaving the asterisk as it appears would be most welcoming to those who engage in sexual intercourse.
Respectfully submitted
Zazenduckie
Administration Board Welcomer
Posted by Declan on March 13, 2007, at 2:05:43
In reply to Where does the vulgarity reside?, posted by zazenduckie on March 12, 2007, at 16:44:32
It reveals our values to us, and informs us of our exemplary character.
Posted by yxibow on March 13, 2007, at 2:29:39
In reply to The asterix is excellent, posted by Declan on March 13, 2007, at 2:05:43
> It reveals our values to us, and informs us of our exemplary character.
Values... as a communications graduate I could go on about community values. Free speech (in the US) has been defined by what is acceptable to community values, and this varies so wildly about community values that the number of court cases has been quite high. For instance I recall some case where a town wanted to basically eliminate adult bookstores, so it created laws that would only allow them 1000 feet or yards or something away from schools, parks, etc. The result of course was that the venue could not exist because it was out of town. I can't remember the case name but this was one of many that have passed through our system.
Exemplary character -- it is fine to set your own example of your own character -- you are free for your own morals and values, to the extent of where you live.
But at the end of the day, as I noted in my comment above, I don't believe that introspective outbursts devalue your own character. Rather, they reveal your humanity. The asterisks are fine, but personal frustration and anger stifled is a coronary waiting to happen.
You can disagree, that is fine.
-- tidings
Go forward in 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.