|
22 Jun 05 - 12:59 PM (#1507086) Subject: BS: rudities From: Sooz I've had a whole day without the Mudcat because my work net nanny says that the forum "has too many questionable words" to allow me to access it. This sometimes happens when I want to open a single thread but its a long time since it happened to the whole forum. Does this mean that we are getting naughtier? |
|
22 Jun 05 - 01:21 PM (#1507104) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Rapparee It means your Net Nanny (not a very good filter, in my opinion) is not only easily embarassed, but prudish to an extreme. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 01:26 PM (#1507107) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Jos Must be that thread about naughty potatoes. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 01:28 PM (#1507111) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Wolfgang add 'fingerpicking' to that and you know why. Wolfgang |
|
22 Jun 05 - 01:32 PM (#1507114) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: GUEST,MMario possibly the jane fonda thread? |
|
22 Jun 05 - 01:34 PM (#1507116) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Sooz I reckon thats what tipped it over the edge! |
|
22 Jun 05 - 01:44 PM (#1507120) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Donuel How many are too many words. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 01:50 PM (#1507125) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Bill D I tried to address that concern just now in the Fonda thread, but I fear it is a lost cause, as there is this " we can't even APPEAR to have any censorship" notion right now, never mind that you just proved my point, Sooz... |
|
22 Jun 05 - 02:31 PM (#1507166) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Sooz Donuel, the number is not specified. I think they make it up from day to day! Glad to have been of service, Bill. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 02:53 PM (#1507178) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Joe Offer Hi, Sooz - In the Help Forum, there's a thread called Bawdy Filter. It's not always on the Help Forum Menu, but you can always find it by putting bawdy in the Filter box and setting the age back. Does that filter get you past Net Nanny? I've heard lots of complaints about threads with naughty names in the Forum Menu, and people say that the filters won't allow access if those words are on the list. As far as I can recall, you're the first person who has actually had problems, though. All the other complaints seem to be people saying that net nanny and other profanity filters might block access. I tried it from the children's section of my library, and had no problem getting access to Mudcat. Please try our "bawdy filter" in the Help Forum and let me know if it works. Probably best to send me a personal message, so I don't miss it. This really doesn't happen all that often on Mudcat that we have a "naughty" word on the active Forum Menu, so I hate to get too worked up about it (although my saying that may be enough to get the trolls worked up). If you use the Filter to look for objectionable words, you'll see it isn't very often that we've had threads like that. I realize that there is a difference of opinion about the titles of the John Mehlberg threads and about the legitimacy of his research - but a significant number of people DO value his research and DO think his thread titles are appropriate. That being the case, our usual inclination is to err on the side of freedom of speech and permit John to title threads as he wishes. The argument about "Net Nanny" blocking access is also legitimate - but I want hard facts, proof that our Bawdy Filter doesn't get around Net Nanny. -Joe Offer- |
|
22 Jun 05 - 03:27 PM (#1507203) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Sooz Thanks Joe - I'll give it a go on Friday (I'm not in school tomorrow) |
|
22 Jun 05 - 05:40 PM (#1507323) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Charmion Here at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa, we screen slaves labour behind a remarkably picky firewall that is designed to screen anything that might possibly be porn. The Canadian government has a real fear of civil servants accessing porn on Her Majesty's IT systems. The DND firewall has yet to block the Cat, but then I never know what will set it off. Some time ago I was googling the names of the national Aboriginal leaders to make sure I spelled them correctly for photo captions, and got shot down on Matthew Coon Come, the president of the Assembly of First Nations ... ! Sooz's net nanny may not even be reacting to one of the seven words you must never say on television. |
|
22 Jun 05 - 07:17 PM (#1507447) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Bill D The real point is that 'usually', when someone first accesses Mudcat using a filter, it doesn't read INTO the thread, but merely scans the visible words....which is why I promote my feeling so strongly. That way, if one suspects that opening a thread might trigger the filter, it is still possible to read 'most' thread without fear. As I 'think' I said before, if anyone has better info about how filters work, I'd be glad to revise my thinking. (Now, of course, if opening a thread with 'bad words' automatically puts a site on a forbidden list, then I don't know how you get it off again....I suspect 'administrator' privileges.) as it is, if there are people who HAVE been prevented from using Mudcat because of filters, then perhaps it is not surprising that we don't hear from them, hmmmm? |
|
22 Jun 05 - 10:02 PM (#1507608) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Rapparee Filters that I am familiar with utilize a list of words AND a list of websites. The words are taken in context -- "breast of chicken" and "rump roast" would not be blocked because of the words "breast" and "rump;" neither would "breast cancer." The list of words can also be added to and deleted from, allowing you to enter "foutter" or "puta" and take out "come." Problem is, most of these lists only use English -- you have to add the words you want to block when they are in other languages (as the French and Spanish examples). And that can lead to a website blocking the Latin "Et cum spiritu tuo" ("And with your spirit," a response in the old Tridentine Mass of the Catholic Church) because it contains the Latin word "cum." The "blocked word in context" filters would pass it; the "words on this list" filters would block it. The list of blocked websites are usually a standard list to which you can add. The websites fall into various categories (gambling, computer games, sex, chat, pornography, crime, news, shopping, etc.), and you can simply check which categories you want blocked. You can usually add URLs to these, but it's difficult to remove them from the standard lists. Then there's the Children's Internet Protection Act, which mandates that filters should block sites not for words, but for images -- a technology that doesn't yet work. Sigh. I know too much about this sort of thing. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 07:29 AM (#1507835) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Wolfgang Is there any place on the world outside of the USA in which there is a similar problem? Or is it just a local problem? Wolfgang |
|
23 Jun 05 - 07:39 AM (#1507841) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Tracey Dragonsfriend It's in the UK too. Some public PC's would maybe complain at the titles, and I know my sister's PC at work does. Starring out words in thread titles I think would help... |
|
23 Jun 05 - 09:35 AM (#1507955) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: GUEST Our school filter (UK) will often block threads and more rarely the list of threads or part thereof. I'll try the bawdy filter. Ialso find that clicking on sort descending will let me past. I don't think it can always count backwards :) |
|
23 Jun 05 - 09:41 AM (#1507961) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: GUEST,MMario well - I know our filter has blocked sites on partial words. such as shitake, cockerel, and once even blocked a site because of a typo - "duke" was mispelled "dike" in one location and the entire site got blocked as porn! |
|
23 Jun 05 - 12:56 PM (#1508113) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Joe Offer So, what are those seven words you're not supposed to say? Am I correct in thinking George Carlin is responsible for the list? -Joe Offer- Hey, I put "seven words" "George Carlin" in Google and it came right up. George's monologue is here (click). The words are Shit, Piss, Fuck, Cunt, Cocksucker, Motherfucker and Tits. Now you know. |
|
23 Jun 05 - 03:48 PM (#1508232) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Liz the Squeak So Wanker and Bollocks are OK then?! How about Scunthorpe? LTS |
|
23 Jun 05 - 09:42 PM (#1508505) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Joe Offer Liz, you and I are going to have to have a little talk. I don't know what any of those words mean. They didn't teach me them in the seminary, and my wife won't (or can't) tell me... -Joe Offer- |
|
23 Jun 05 - 10:01 PM (#1508526) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: The Fooles Troupe Well, **** this ******* thread for a ******** then... |
|
24 Jun 05 - 01:03 AM (#1508626) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Bill D MMario....they blocked DIKE??? They can't even spell what they are against...the purportedly offensive word is 'dyke'. |
|
24 Jun 05 - 11:46 AM (#1508853) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: GUEST,Micca a friend got blocked for both Scunthorpe and Marseille, it was ironic as his company had an office in Scunthorpe(a steelmaking town in Lincolnshire UK ) at the time, so the companys mail "offensive words" filter really screwed up their communications |
|
24 Jun 05 - 12:37 PM (#1508864) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: GUEST I worked for an Economics specialist for many years. It was barely possible for them to write an email that didn't get blocked by the "Do-you-seriously-want-to-get-rich" filters everyone had in place. Sure, we could get the emails out, but no-one would let them in ... |
|
24 Jun 05 - 03:27 PM (#1508908) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: michaelr The Capercaillie regularly forum spells Saturday "Sa****ay". ;-) |
|
25 Jun 05 - 03:47 AM (#1509281) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: Liz the Squeak Actually, there was a ruling about 30 years ago that Bollocks was not considered an obscenity. It all started when a chain of stores called W H Smiths (newsagent, stationery, music etc) put a copy of the best selling album on display in the front window. Someone complained to who ever it is you complain to, and it went all the way to court. A High Court judge (who had been in the army and knew what it meant) ruled that it was not an obscene word and could be displayed openly and freely without fear of retribution. The reason for all this? An album by original punk band, the Sex Pistols, called 'Never mind the bollocks'. LTS |
|
26 Jun 05 - 12:52 AM (#1509981) Subject: RE: BS: rudities From: GUEST >The reason for all this? An album by original punk band, the Sex >Pistols, called 'Never mind the bollocks'. A band of wankers from Scunthorpe, presumably.... |