Austin Powers: The Spy Who Sha g ged Me (1999) Question

[Porty]

for the Mods.

The above titled movie was on general release, advertised on Billboard, Bus Shelters, TV and Cinema and was deemed suitable for 12 year olds. Although the adverts could be read and understood by much younger people.

It quite clearly features the word S hag . The S hag is also the State dance of North Carolina.

I can sort of understand why we are discouraged from using words like; fuck, ***, wank, cocksucker and motherfucker but why can't we use words like S hag that are accepted in many other public forums?

IMHO the profanity thingy is a bit of a joke, obstructive to newbies and a restriction on freedom of expression as well as being donwright silly as in the example above. . How can newbies possibly expect to grasp the word porcupine appearing in the middle of a sentence about Natasha Kaplinski? Should we have a profanity filter or should we just conduct ourselves in a responsible manner like we do everywhere else, without the need of a censor?

[Poppy]

Porty, there's a very rude word in your message that seems to have avoided being filtered!!

[Porty]

So I see.

[wangi]

I agree 100% Porty - it's a bloody joke.

[Porty]

Dont you mean a vanilla cake joke?

[Guest]

I see your point, Porty, but there are always going to be words which the profanity filter alters needlessly; it can't be made perfect.

But this isn't other forums, this is Portobello's community forum and the way we conduct ourselves here is reflected in the wider community.

[Guest]

The S hag is also the State dance of North Carolina.

and a bird I believe. This is an unfortunate but unavoidable consequence of having a profanity filter.

why can't we use words like S hag that are accepted in many other public forums?

Other than the altemative meanings discussed above, which don't crop up much in conversation, in what other context would you wish to use this word?

How can newbies possibly expect to grasp the word porcupine appearing in the middle of a sentence about Natasha Kaplinski?

You are going to have to explain this one to me. Why would you want to use this word in this context, bearing in mind our other posting guidelines?

[wangi]

And I'm annoyed even more by folk meddling with my posts and altering their content! Esp when the language was perfectly acceptable.

[wangi]

I see your point, Porty, but there are always going to be words which the profanity filter alters needlessly; it can't be made perfect

However I know for a fact it does need to as daft as it currently is. Why on earth replace a word (that somebody somewhere may have found offensive two centurys ago) with absolute drivel? It completely wrecks posts and looses their meaning. If words must be replaced then replace them with "****", not pointless nonsense!

[Porty]

From Bob "Other than the altemative meanings discussed above, which don't crop up much in conversation, in what other context would you wish to use this word? "

How about in the same context as the aforementioned 12 rated fillm? Bob the profanity filter sucks, period. (Watch out there's another couple of dodgy ones)

[wangi]

Argh! From another topic...

100% Jay - who cares about the rights & wrongs of how the situation came about! This guys doesn't deserve to die and it's vanilla cake disgusting to "politely discuss" around someones life!

Can you just leave things be!!!

[Porty]

But this isn't other forums, this is Portobello's community forum and the way we conduct ourselves here is reflected in the wider community.

Alex, think about the consequences of what you are saying? Following your logic we need a sensor as we cannot conduct ourselves in a manner that is acceptable to the wider community. Yet as far as I know we all do so.
Its total nonsense. I say we have a trial without it and monitor how it goes? I don't think anyone will let us down. If they do then get rid. Im fed up with the
minority restricting the freedomof the majority. They should not get away with it.

[Guest]

I believe that the English language contains more words than any other in the world. Scrabble, for example, accepts around 160,000 words. Of these we disallow a very tiny number.

My impression is that Portobello Online forum members are intelligent people, who are more than capable of expressing themselves without resorting to language that some people might find offensive.

I'm a little confused (and I think you are too) about whether you want us to remove the filter to allow you freedom of speech to use any word you like, or whether you are saying that if we remove the filter you can be trusted never to use these words again. The former is never going to happen on this forum for obvious reasons and if the latter is the case, then why not just pretend the filter isn't there and don't use the disallowed words?

[wangi]

Because it's not the filter that's messing around with my posts? Because the language is actually acceptable?

[bellybabe]

Our guidelines are intended to encourage as many people as possible of all ages to participate in our local discussion forum

This board is open to children as well as older people. Some parents may find swearing acceptable in front of their children. I prefer not to, and prefer other people not to swear in front of my children too. My eldest son is old enough to read things of interest on this board, but i currently don't allow him to because of words I don't particularly want him to use. he has already been in trouble in school this term for using inappropriate language he heard elsewhere. I would like to avoid a repeat of that.

I think it would be great to trust people to not use language that some find offensive, but trust doesn't work as a reread of a few recent posts will show.

This guideline is not about censorship or rules; it's about making our online community a place where all people feel welcome and able to post. Outwith this board i swear like a trooper in selected company, but in other company i feel it appropriate to moderate my language. Certainly i would not swear in the playground at school. Some people feel very put off by swearing, and such people would be discouraged from joining in on the board because of it.

As for the comments about the film, Porty, you disppoint me for once. The fact that the film was given a 12 certificate does not mean we all agree the film, or perhaps its title, is acceptable or appropriate for 12 year olds. As for billboard advertising, there is little we can do about advertising of things we feel is inappropriate. I don't like watching my children gaze at ads on bus stops for horror films...but i can't do anything about it. I expect to be able to let them look at interesting things on the forum without having to worry about the language involved.

[Porty]

I'm a little confused (and I think you are too) about whether you want us to remove the filter to allow you freedom of speech to use any word you like, or whether you are saying that if we remove the filter you can be trusted never to use these words again.

Im saying I don't need a filter to modify my behaviour, im betting the vast majority of people on here are the same. As you know Ive only been here 3 months, tell me, was the Filter introduced because the forum was being consistently abused?

[Porty]

As for the comments about the film, Porty, you disppoint me for once. The fact that the film was given a 12 certificate does not mean we all agree the film, or perhaps its title, is acceptable or appropriate for 12 year olds. As for billboard advertising, there is little we can do about advertising of things we feel is inappropriate. I don't like watching my children gaze at ads on bus stops for horror films...but i can't do anything about it. I expect to be able to let them look at interesting things on the forum without having to worry about the language involved.

BB im sorry I have disappointed you.

Unfortunately you are inaccurate with the above paragraph on 2 points;

1) the ASA is an excellent mechanism for complaining about adverts.

2) The Spy who Shagged me its the Title of a movie that past through a Board of Censors, its not just an advert.

You go on to say "I expect to be able to let them look at interesting things on the forum without having to worry about the language involved"

Which one us doesn't want the same? I just don't believe we need a profanity policeman to achieve it.

[wangi]

I believe the filter was first "activated" to remove occurrence of a certain website thats domain starts with "g" and ends in "u". That's still in place... That's just plain censorship, it's nothing about suitability of language.

It's then grown from that, adding childish words and phrases into (some) folks posts...

[Porty]

My impression is that Portobello Online forum members are intelligent people, who are more than capable of expressing themselves without resorting to language that some people might find offensive.

Ok, lets go with your impression Bob. If you mean what you say, why do we need a filter?

[Jay]

I believe that the English language contains more words than any other in the world. Scrabble, for example, accepts around 160,000 words. Of these we disallow a very tiny number.

You're right about the English language, but the problem is that perfectly innocent words pick up other meanings, such as the relative of the cormorant, which now appears in the title of the Austin Powers' film, or the shortened versions of a couple of male names etc., etc. I have no desire to start swearing all over the forum, but I do get a wee bit frustrated when I find a profanity-replacement in place of an innocent word. I appreciate Bellybabe's point about her youngsters, but - though I hate to say this - they will probably hear worse from kids their own age at school, and still have to be advised on what is not appropriate.

I think the trial period without one would be a good idea. You can always put it back again.

As you know Ive only been here 3 months, tell me, was the Filter introduced because the forum was being consistently abused?

Was it?

PS

I believe the filter was first "activated" to remove occurrence of a certain website thats domain starts with "g" and ends in "u".

I haven't a clue what this is!

[Jay]

The filter has only become so obvious because so many posts (not posters!) use profanity.

Well, not as far as I'm concerned, Marya. It's the way it also picks up words in their innocent meaning that has become noticeable. I know it can't think for itself, and recognise context, of course!

[bellybabe]

BB im sorry I have disappointed you.

That's ok, dear, you're allowed to slip occasionally .

Unfortunately you are inaccurate with the above paragraph on 2 points;

1) the ASA is an excellent mechanism for complaining about adverts.

2) The Spy who Shagged me its the Title of a movie that past through a Board of Censors, its not just an advert.

I wasn't saying it was simply an advertisement - I did mention the fact that it as a film was given a 12 certificate. My point was more that the fact that decisions made by the BBFC or whatever they're called these days do not necessarily match what every member of the public wants. My point about advertising was more in answer to your point that this film was advertised very publicly where kids could see it. That's all.
And I'm not as convinced as you about the ASA. But that, like everything else i've said, is simply a personal opinion.
BB

[Porty]

The filter has only become so obvious because so many posts (not posters!) use profanity.

Tosh, its become obvious because so many innocent posts are bastardised by the profanity filter.

BTW you are not putting forward a substantive argument as to why we need a filter?

Where you see the word frogman above it should read B astardised. Which is not a swear word. I imagine it would be perfectly acceptable in a Standard Grade or Higher essay.

[wangi]

Jay wrote:

I know it can't think for itself, and recognise context, of course!

Exactly Jay, which will always result in some daft rewording at times. Not unlivable with though,surely?

Even with the filter active it does not need to insert such stupid replacements!

[Jay]

Not unlivable with though,surely?

Well, no. Just a wee bit irritating. But I was interested in the question Porty asked - was there a lot of profanity on the forum Before Filter?

[Porty]

Well, no. Just a wee bit irritating. But I was interested in the question Porty asked - was there a lot of profanity on the forum Before Filter?

I hope you get a straight answer to that question.

[Jay]

I've explained that swearing may alienate new posters and that there is a difference between treating the Forum like a personal chatroom and the public board that it is. There would be no need to have the filter if all members respected this ,but experience has proved otherwise. Ergo we need a filter.

This seems to answer your question and mine about the Forum Before Filter, Porty.

[Jay]

OK - fair enough.

[wangi]

BTW Wangi, blame Bob's sense of humour for some of those replacements!

Hmmm, it is inappropriate - generic asterixs should be inserted because "humour" is not suitable in all posts. We've got a thread going about a poor guy destined to be killed - my post gets edited/filtered (why? it was trying to get round the filter) and a "bit of humour" inserted, very good i'm sure the family will understand!

[Porty]

Marya, Im with Bob "My impression is that Portobello Online forum members are intelligent people, who are more than capable of expressing themselves without resorting to language that some people might find offensive. "

I could have made that statement myself, indeed I could not have put it better. If we accept what Bob says at face value Im struggling with why we have a filter? Can you work it out?

I don't believe Wangi and I are differing? I suspect he thinks that there is langage that is intolerable as do I. There are less than 240 registered members, there are 5 moderators, there is an overwhelming will to treat the forum with respect.Between us we can easily manage any unacceptable posts. Let the filter earn its place, switch it off and see how we get on respecting each other and the rest of the wider community.

[wangi]

Wangi, I agree that there are times when asterisks would be more appropriate. What are the practical problems behind that do you know?
Would you just replace all alternatives with asterisks? Or physically edit posts to maintain tone?

No problems at all - could flip it over to do it just now

Yeah, would just replace all the current alternatives with asterisks.

[Guest]

Okay, I agree, the asterisks are a good idea.

But the profanity filter isn't going - regardless of the will of the majority, some people will always spoil things for the rest of us. That is one of the things the filter guards against.

[ceejam]

I think it's fucking ridiculous shit that the filter puts in random cunts when pepole type wanking words. And only the controller of the profanity bollocks knows what they mean.

Please can we have asterisks instead, it makes it much bloody easier to read!!

[Porty]

Okay, I agree, the asterisks are a good idea.

But the profanity filter isn't going - regardless of the will of the majority, some people will always spoil things for the rest of us. That is one of the things the filter guards against.

Alex, I am trying to get an answer as to why we have a need for a filter? Can you help?

[Porty]

Porty wrote:

there are 5 moderators,

Do you know something I don't?

(Oh boy,am I laying myself open with that comment! )

Actually I mis-counted but I could count Administrator also. I bet he gets 2 votes.