Red flagging threads for having the word bullshit in titles

@Butrflynet,

Quote:

It already is an opt in program.

When you registered for Robert's website, you agreed to his site's terms of service and privacy policy. If you do not agree with his site's terms of service and privacy policy, you have the option of opting out and using some other website.

I have not read in the site terms of service that you can not express any public disagree with any of the current elements of the terms of services without the need to stop using the service.

Perhaps that had been added since I last read the terms that no disagreement or questioning of how this website is run or set up are allow under the terms.

Just because I find some elements of how this site operate is at the very best ill advise does not mean I am planning on leaving unless you can point out where the terms of service require that as a user that I can not question the wisdom of any elements of the terms of service. With special note of elements that frankly at least in how they are currently being apply I consider childish

You are reminding me of some other members of this website telling those of us who are disagreeing with actions of the US Government that we should all move to Russia and join Snowden.

1 Reply

@Butrflynet,

Quote:

If you do not agree with his site's terms of service and privacy policy, you have the option of opting out and using some other website.

You know Butrflynet I been thinking of your comment and you just might be right as this website had been a time sink for me with god know how many thousands of hours spend over the last years in creating 24 thousands postings.

Then after posting all this free materials for Robert use over the years having a harmless thread dealing with the Discovery Channel abused of the Amish being censor/red flag for using the word bullshit instead of nonsense is a little too must.

I been wanting to learn a numbers of computer languages and set up a Linux system and any numbers of other projects in any case.

Once more thanks for bring up the idea of pulling the plug on this website.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

DAVID wrote:

Its rude to turn the attention of your fellow citizens to excrement.
The idea is to make the forum WORSE????

BillRM wrote:

Amazing Dave that a word that connection to animal excrement is mild to begin with and off hand does not bring up a mental picture of bull **** to any great degree, as it is now used not to refer to excrement but as a slightly stronger stand in for the word nonsense would be so upsetting to you.

IF someone mis- calculates,
then u show yourself to be a naked liar
IF u assert that his error is bovine or that it is excremental
unless cattle and ejecta actually ARE involved.

Is there SOMETHING RONG with being truthful, Bill?????

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Is the below picture the only type of picture that will be allow of women that will not be red flag and if not why not?

Presumably not, because corporate content filters in the free world will not search images for their content but will search text for certain keywords. If enough of the key words are found (by the corporate administrator's definition of "enough"), the corporate content filter will proceed to ban A2K altogether. Remember, it's "not safe for work", not "not safe to read on your home computer". Many American workplaces have restrictive policies on private use of the internet. Webmasters around the internet have to account for this fact of life. There are plenty of sites where we couldn't start threads with titles containing the word "****". A2K lets us do it and then flags it. What's the big deal?

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I have not read in the site terms of service that you can not express any public disagree with any of the current elements of the terms of services without the need to stop using the service.

And you can, as demonstrated by the fact that you just did disagree.

The way A2K seems to operate, you can express any opinion you want, using whatever language you want. (I haven't seen any dirty-word filter since A2K stopped running under phpBB.) Conversely, A2K has the right to comment on your language in whatever way it sees fit. It's Robert's site. If you don't like the way he runs it, ask him for your money back and leave. (You did pay him to supply a soap box for you to spread your worldview, didn't you? Nah, don't answer that. It was a rhetorical question.)

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Once more thanks for bring up the idea of pulling the plug on this website.

You wouldn't be the first, and probably won't be the last. So far, this website has survived it just fine.

0 Replies

@Thomas,

BillRM wrote:

Is the below picture the only type of picture that will be allow of women
that will not be red flag and if not why not?

Thomas wrote:

Presumably not, because corporate content filters in the free world will not search images for their content but will search text for certain keywords. If enough of the key words are found (by the corporate administrator's definition of "enough"), the corporate content filter will proceed to ban A2K altogether. Remember, it's "not safe for work", not "not safe to read on your home computer". Many American workplaces have restrictive policies on private use of the internet. Webmasters around the internet have to account for this fact of life. There are plenty of sites where we couldn't start threads with titles containing the word "****". A2K lets us do it and then flags it. What's the big deal?

I 'm olde fashioned enuf to believe that when u go to work,
u go to WORK, not to have fun with entertainment on the Internet,
the same way that u dont watch TV re-runs during Office Hours.
When I used to hire professional talent or hire support staff
for my law firm in the 19OOs, thay never offered to watch TV
nor to have fun on the Internet on time for which I paid them to work.
During hiring interviews, applicants said (or at least implied) that thay'd
devote their attention on-the-job to getting the work done successfully,
not to engaging in personal distractions, for fun. (Appropriately enuf,
the NYC Police Dept. calls that: "stealing time".) I spent my own time
in the office professionally preparing my clients' litigation and billed
my clients accordingly. Litigation is fighting. We needed to plan and
prepare our forthcoming battles. We did. Failing to plan is planning
to fail. I took those battles seriously.

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

OmSigDAVID wrote:

u go to WORK, not to have fun with entertainment on the Internet, the same way that u dont watch TV re-runs during Office Hours.

Many businesses hold similarly old-fashioned views. They give their employees computers with internet access so they can use the internet for work. But they don't want them to surf it for private reasons. As one imperfect but workable heuristic to distinguish between the two, some businesses program their content filters to weed out pages containing four-letter words. To be sure, four-letter words don't only occur on pages one wouldn't use professionally, but the correlation is strong enough to bet on, so some businesses do.

Consequently, if a website wants to reach its users at work, it's good practice to give users the choice of declining to view content that their employer wouldn't want them to see. I don't think the "not safe for work" flag means any more than that. Employees at more freewheeling firms can ignore it. Writers who insist on using four-letter words run the risk of losing some readers. What's the problem?

0 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

Once more thanks for bring up the idea of pulling the plug on this website.

Yes, thank you Butrflynet.

0 Replies

Red flagging threads for having the word bullshit in titles

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know