The swear filter

[flattop32355]

Re: The swear filter

It would appear from the previous entries that a number of "swear" words are not dealt with by the existing filter, so it seems any fear of total ban is not an issue.

In most of the letters, books, etc., that I have seen, most references to swearing are in the third person, discribing a fit thrown by another and merely stating that they swore strongly rather than quoting the actual words used.

The possible exception to this is any reference to mule-driving, which if I am correct, actually required the use of colorful and inventive cussing, not to mention the liberal use of lumber and/or long metal objects to encourage desired behavior.

[KentuckyReb]

Re: The swear filter

No need for a filter. On the old board, before there was a filter, I never noticed anybody auditioning for Jerry Springer. I really don't see that there's a need for it. And after all, we are all adults on here. Somebody wants to toot a little bit about something that toasts their boxers, no harm in letting them. 'Ah, ah, ahhh...no, no' tends to just make an adult madder when then they're fired up about something. A cuss never raised a blister. Unusual as it is coming from someone named Campbell, however, I am in decided favor of the 'bagpipe' ban. :D

[tmattimore]

Re: The swear filter

I vote for no swearing. Hopwever does the filer include the word screw? An item I can see problems with in discussing hardware.
Tom Mattimore

[Jack Booda]

Re: The swear filter

Tough call, but I vote no filter.

1: Most words can be respelled to circumvent a filter. Filtering will just produce a game for the juveniles to play with. It won't make the resultant words, or their disrespectful intent, any less distasteful.

2: Most of us will run into the occasional "light" Civil War profanities that need to quoted in their entirety. This ensures the historical accuracy that we are supposedly striving to obtain.

Personally, I have been on athletic teams, worked in the mines, and been to college. None of these are "saintly" environments. However, this forum is something special. We have serious historians who are bringing Civil War Reenacting to unheard of levels. We have a group of extraordinarily devoted and talented women who may not enjoy listening to testosterone induced machismo. (Think about it guys, we do not want to get these Master Sewers ticked at us!:)) So, if you got a problem with somebody, TAKE IT OUTSIDE! That's what the PM's are for. ;)

One poster recently commented "we're not six anymore." I agree, lets all grow up and try to get beyond the infatuation of using "naughty words ."

[Michael McComas]

Re: The swear filter

Depending on the list of words you're banning, you'd end up redacting most of the manual of arms for a firelock musket.

While I think we can maintain the proper decorum of gentlefolk here for the most part, I think the filter should be on for the granddaddy epithet, the "F word". Yes, I'm talking about "FARB". I think we see that far too often.

[CaptainUCSB]

Re: The swear filter

People should have the right to post anything they'd like to. If somebody chooses to use profanity and make themself look like an idiot, why shouldn't we all be able to recognize this trait in them? To censor their post because we are all too sensative proves that we are all becoming more and more "metro" by the day. :) Its up to Paul what he does. Personally "foul language" doesn't affect me anymore than romantic poetry.

[ElizabethClark]

Re: The swear filter

God save us from the Metros! LOL

I think it's more a matter of establishing a forum consensus of behavior; the use of profanity, vulgarity, and blasphemy has little place in research discussion, and even heated debate can be conducted without it.

It's not a censoring issue so much as a decision to control language, and apply a higher standard. I do agree that profanity is the refuge of the ignorant in most cases, but the fact remains that its presence in the forum will give the forum as a whole a lesser reputation as a research source, and will also be a discouragement for some parents of teens--and those teens could really use the excellent information here!

[Chris Curtis]

Re: The swear filter

Swearing- Dont really have much of an opinion on this, except that i dont usually consider the Sinks scholarly discussion; Authenticity discussion is, for the most part, a different matter, and I certainly wouldnt want to see swearing in COI either. As for blasphemy, I think we all have different definitions for, and feelings on, that. I personally am not religous, so things of that nature dont effect me at all, but i respect others' feelings if it effects them.
Just my .02,
Chris Curtis

[13thnhv]

Re: The swear filter

I swear more than enough verbally, all through the day. I vote to just share this forum with no foul language and really can't come up with an appropriate reason to use it anyways. In the forum. Thanks.

[Vuhginyuh]

Re: The swear filter

I voted for ''no censor at all'' simply because in some cases we may not be able to share some primary source material word-for-word...

or for when i HIT THE cAPS lOCK AT THE WRONGTIME AND i DONT LOOK AT THE SCREEN BEFORE i TYPE AN ENTIRE SENTENCE.

[tarwater_mess]

Re: The swear filter

I have yet to see profanity on this forum, old or new? I am against censorship of any kind.

[JimKindred]

Re: The swear filter

Mark,

There have been examples, trust me on that. I am not for censorship either but unfortunately either due to a lack of maturity or manners on some forum members part this issue has been brought up. Should it be beyond the moderators to control this lack of maturity or manners of these individuals on a case by case basis then some sort of censorship becomes necessary and I will support it.

[Secede1863]

Re: The swear filter

Again,
I vote for censory of "the mother of all swear words".
I am all for doing word for word qoutations and documents, it is up to the moderators of this forum, as I see it, To decide what should be done if the N work falls into a document or qoutation.

I see No harm done if the occasional swear word slips out in discussion in some areas of this forum (SINKS for example) but the authenticity discussion is no place for the F word unless used in historical content of a letter or qoute. For aslong as I have been viewing this forum (2 years) it has been a nice pool of authentic civil war historians and reenactors. BUT I see no point in letting swear words be used against other members...no ifs and or buts about that one for me.

Andrew

[JimKindred]

Problem with thread

This thread seems to have a problem, it continues to register with a new post when it has not had one since 13 Jan.

[dusty27]

Re: The swear filter

Jim,

Every time someone votes, it registers as a "new" post.