Censoring: is it Censible? Does it make any Cense?l

[Spitpatch]

Perhaps I beat a dead horse. But I've actually had dead horses before, and I expended no effort resisting any urge to beat them.

With moderate to average experience on this website, I surmise the censorship to be fully automated (and therefore, fully nonsensical). My educated guess is that there is "software" included in the package of website construction that searches for certain words and without any regard to context, inserts the "bubblegum" substitute.

On frequent occasions, this becomes ridiculous. I used the term "retarded" to describe my OWN sensibilities, and it was altered. I can only wonder (maybe I'll try it) if I should try to convey technical information regarding retarded ignition in certain handloads as a safety consideration. (e-mail or PM me if these words here are "handicappedly" deleted or substituted). Some may question my expertise if I try to warn them of bubblegummed ignition with certain primer choices and certain powders. I've never experienced "bubblegummed" ignition, but retarded ignition is a significant concern.

"Hell" is a real place for some, actually mentioned in the Bible. Even most athesists and agnostics have experienced a version of it on this earth (Haedes equivalent in case it didn't come through here).

"Bastard" is a definitive term, in the most politically correct dictionaries on the face of the earth, (and perhaps less significantly in some views in the Bible), and some actually wear the title proudly (in case it didn't survive the ROBOCENSOR, it defines a person of questionable lineage, particularly on the paternal side).

Is there some way to turn down the dial a bit??? I agree that FRNORK (equivalent) does not belong here, but there needs to be some way that regularly recognized and definitive terms in the English language can be allowed on a regular basis.

I know other websites that fully allow recognized literary terms, while disallowing the truly vulgar. On occasion there is a fine line, but the line here is written with a fat Kindergarten Crayola.

Read More

 

[Joe Link]

Thanks for posting this.

When NWFA started we were a wide-open, no-rules kind of place. As the site grew (past us initial couple hundred members) I realized that this was not in-line with my goals for the site. We tried asking members to tone it down but that didn't work. In order to right the ship we had to go a little overboard, and we've been relaxing a bit here and there ever since.

While the auto filter did mask your words, us staff members can still see what you wrote, and I'm inclined to agree with you on those terms. Let me think on this for a while and I'll get back to you

 

[Toxic6]

What about frag, bubblegume, arse, etc.

Shiite (had to see )

 

[Spitpatch]

Save your thinking, and go to "Ammuntion and Reloading". Look for a new post regarding "good information, but only a test".

 

[Spitpatch]

Better yet, grab an autofilter not endorsed by Pat Robertson. I am actually comforted in my conclusion that all this is automated, and cannot be assigned (at least directly) to the Moderators. I do NOT seek wide open saloon-level language allowed. I think there is an avenue for something below that level of freelance usage of our shared and contemporary language that allows for commonly accepted and regular terms.

And secondly, I was surprised I was not taking a whip to Ol' Dobbin, deceased. I do recognize that prohibitions need to be established for those who are not as careful as some of us with language. I don't understand why those who want to post freely (and may not be as careful as myself) cannot post as they wish, with their learned and used manners and language they might use in front of their Mothers.

 

[DieselScout]

I have to admit the bubblegum thing threw me for a loop as well. Other forums I frequent have filters for expletives but they just use a *. The bubblegum being inserted everywhere was really confusing at first and it made some post near impossible to decipher. It frustrated me to no end as initially I thought it was members just trying to be cute when really it was making good information hard to discern.

Just my opinion.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC

 

[orygun]

The one that really took me by surprise was when I tried to describe something that was very soft shooting and used the feline name for the opposite of a tom cat. I'd never heard of a bubblegum cat before!

I, too, remember being new to this site and having a tough time deciphering thru all of the bubblegum. On occasion I think it's funny, but sometimes in the context of the post, I'm left scratching my head wondering what got censored.

 

[drew]

If I want to see what a censored word is, try replying with quote. You'll see the post unfiltered. Some people here self-censor by typing bubblegum instead of a word that would be filtered.

 

[Mikej]

I, too, remember being new to this site and having a tough time deciphering thru all of the bubblegum. On occasion I think it's funny, but sometimes in the context of the post, I'm left scratching my head wondering what got censored.

Funny, Iv'e done that a time or two. I did try throwing an off-color word in once and it showed up in the "Post Preview" so i edited before posting, don't want to end up on the "Bubblegum" list ya' know.

Mike

 

[swoop]

Not the kind of word I like to see mixed in with guns on a gun forum. Guess I'm kinda old-school.