Censorship

Censorship

[DervishD]

    Hi all :))

    Who is 'warden.diginsite.com'?

Place = Linux-kernel; ; ; DervishD
Sender = DervishD
Subject = About the need of a swap area
Delivery Time = July 27, 2002 (Saturday) 05:21:54
Policy = Dirty Words
Action on this mail = Quarantine message

Warning message from administrator:
Sender, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail.

    That is so we cannot write the f* word anymore? Maybe if I say
'Dirty Words' in my mother language they will pass undetected, coño!
XDDDDDDDD

    Well, absurd...

    Raúl

Re: Censorship

[Matti Aarnio]

On Sat, Jul 27, 2002 at 03:16:28PM +0200, DervishD wrote:
>     Hi all :))
> 
>     Who is 'warden.diginsite.com'?

  Smells of some M$ system -- which even isn't a subscriber
  of  linux-kernel  list (at least with that name).
  Perhaps some ISP ?

  The M$-smell comes specifically from "Delivery Time" line, being
  formatted in M$-style way, and entirely lacking time zone info..
  Also the entire message has overall style of M$ environment..

> Place = Linux-kernel; ; ; DervishD
> Sender = DervishD
> Subject = About the need of a swap area
> Delivery Time = July 27, 2002 (Saturday) 05:21:54
> Policy = Dirty Words
> Action on this mail = Quarantine message
> 
> Warning message from administrator:
> Sender, Content filter has detected a sensitive e-mail.
> 
>     That is so we cannot write the f* word anymore? Maybe if I say
> 'Dirty Words' in my mother language they will pass undetected, coño!
> XDDDDDDDD
> 
>     Well, absurd...
> 
>     Raúl

Re: Censorship

[DervishD]

    Hi Matti :)

>>     Who is 'warden.diginsite.com'?
>  Smells of some M$ system -- which even isn't a subscriber
>  of  linux-kernel  list (at least with that name).
>  Perhaps some ISP ?

    Its MTA is IIS, so you are right, is a M$ system. And the name
smells like an ISP. Just I don't know how the message got thru its
system, my MTA sends mail directly to destination (that is, to vger).

    Maybe a subscriber is client of warden.diginsite.com

    Raúl

Re: Censorship

[jdow]

From: "DervishD" <raul@pleyades.net>

>     Hi Matti :)
>
> >>     Who is 'warden.diginsite.com'?
> >  Smells of some M$ system -- which even isn't a subscriber
> >  of  linux-kernel  list (at least with that name).
> >  Perhaps some ISP ?
>
>     Its MTA is IIS, so you are right, is a M$ system. And the name
> smells like an ISP. Just I don't know how the message got thru its
> system, my MTA sends mail directly to destination (that is, to vger).
>
>     Maybe a subscriber is client of warden.diginsite.com
>
>     Raúl

All that aside it has been said that profanity is the effort of a
weak mind to express itself. Of course, I've demonstrated my own
weak mind from time to time. I just try to avoid having it
immortalized on the web somewhere. Imagine an prospective employer
making a quick search for a background search. Good impressions do
help one acquire the jobs that allow us to continue this playing.

{^_-}

Re: Censorship

[DervishD]

    Hi jdow :)

>>     Maybe a subscriber is client of warden.diginsite.com
>All that aside it has been said that profanity is the effort of a
>weak mind to express itself.

    Well, it may be true sometimes, but I don't think so. One nobel
prize in my country used 'gross language' to achieve expresiveness in
his books. Moreover, he sometimes used it just because it was the
correct word. In english 'dirty words' are not the same as in other
languages. In spanish, for example, we have a great set of dirty
words that means very complicated expressions. You wouldn't find a
clean word to substitute.

>I just try to avoid having it immortalized on the web somewhere.

    Yes, let's have a 'clean web' through censorship. This is an
advance. And, oh, well, let's forbid too politically incorrect
language, and, why not? language that is pain for our ears (that is,
opinions against the 'mass'). Censorship is *never* well.

>Imagine an prospective employer making a quick search for a
>background search. Good impressions do help one acquire the jobs
>that allow us to continue this playing.

    If an employer values more my language (or my look, so to say)
that my brain and capacity, I don't want to work for him. And I know,
believe me: if Alan Cox asks for a job (as a developer, for instance)
in some enterprises here in my country (just an example again) he
should have its hair cut and the beard removed, and better wear an
expensive suit (with a tie, of course). I, personally, add more value
to the things inside of the head than outside.

    And people who gets hurt by dirty words as 'porn' (I include it
here just for having this message rejected too) has a very poor
tolerance to pain, I think...

    Raúl

Re: Censorship

[Tomasz Rola]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, DervishD wrote:

[...]
> >I just try to avoid having it immortalized on the web somewhere.
> 
>     Yes, let's have a 'clean web' through censorship. This is an
> advance. And, oh, well, let's forbid too politically incorrect
> language, and, why not? language that is pain for our ears (that is,
> opinions against the 'mass'). Censorship is *never* well.

Now, since we have a weekend, it's time for an opposite opinion. Let's
have some fun and thinking.

Censorship is great. It improves creativity. You may say "a bitch is a
forbidden word". And I would say "You son of a woffom" (WOman Fucking FOr
Money). Or we could make our dirty words more politically correct, by
using a word "huffom" (yes, that's HUman Fucking FOr Money). You see,
censorship is really wonderfull (wonder-full) and I love it so much.

In my country (Poland), censorship never worked as expected. People always
knew better what was going on (in most cases, I think). Besides, after
1989 everything is allowed and the quality of books and films here is
really bad - just ask anybody from Poland if s/he likes films created
during censorship or newer ones. All right, even if not everybody, I
myself think that newer ones are simply stupid. It (the quality) only
started to improve slightly a year or two ago. It was better with
censorship.

And besides if one wants to say something, censorship won't stop this.
Thus I think that censorship is not for imprisonment of mind but rather a
tool for improving artistic production. If it was created for
imprisonment or preventing the truth, than I suspect it was a product of
some idiot (bureauidiocy? - perhaps).

Instead of "fucking" just say "hasing". And voila - language firewall is
neutralised. I would even risk to say, that trying to stop an
inteligent man with... ehm, balls is a futile effort of some poor tioffups
(Webster: the illegitimate offspring of unmarried parents), who think that
hiding a problem is the same as solving it. As long as they (those
tioffups) lack inteligence and balls, their efforts can't be successful.

So, it's not the barrier that counts but the spirit that wants to pass
through it. If one has no spirit, than even gods won't help him (well,
Thor wouldn't waste his time to help a spiritless doormat, I'm pretty sure 
about this).

As of dirty words, I don't think they are good but the fact is, that they
are. And they are to stay. Instead of throwing money into the mud, some
people should think more about things like "where are the dirty words
coming from" and "why do we need them". This could solve the problem. If
this is a problem, that is. I like using those words from time to time.
They are like spice to the language. Without them, our speech would be
tasteless. With too many of them, our speech is nasty. Using a spice
requires both a sense of taste and some thinking behind it. In a bad
hands, however, this is just a "weakling demonstrating it's weakness"
(and emptiness), as someone before me have already written. Here in
Poland, bad language is a common way to avoid showing lack of one's own
language skills. Sad story. Once again, some stupid tioffups were/are
trying to stop this with powers of gov ("bla bla, those words are
forbidden: bla bla bla ... and now we have this problem off of our heads")
instead of just improving readership.

By the way, there are many other spices to the language as well as natural
tastes (no spice at all). To say something without colorizing it with a
spice is a watermark of a real artist (if it is still tasty of course).

So I don't care about the censorship at all. If there is any such thing in
the future I would recommend evolving the language so fast, that the
tioffups stop understanding what we are talking about. It may be a problem
for untrained people but not for someone who hacks all day long.
OPS, I've used a forbidden word - I meant 'twoses', "to work on
something". Just another language exercise. And what fun.

The idea of creating a new language is not mine - I have read about it in
Andrzej Zajdel books - Polish s-f writer, now dead but his books are
still in my head. In a book titled "Paradyzja" (don't know how to
translate, perhaps "Paradisia" is ok), society is totally invigilated but
some people invented a slang and use it for digging holes. There are many
variations of this concept. For example, one can use common words with
totally different meaning - alchemists are said to create such encrypted
books, so that the meaning is hidden well under what seems to be totally
stupid babbling.

Now, back to twosing. See you. I ave to twos into those Fivegon
pasokons. You know. Or do you? :-). All right, actually I will first twos
my own pasokon. Then I will see. Wish me happy twosing.

bye
T.

- --
** A C programmer asked whether computer had Buddha's nature.      **
** As the answer, master did "rm -rif" on the programmer's home    **
** directory. And then the C programmer became enlightened...      **
**                                                                 **
** Tomasz Rola          mailto:tomasz_rola@bigfoot.com             **

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPfreeware 5.0i for non-commercial use
Charset: noconv

iQA/AwUBPUQKsxETUsyL9vbiEQKDVgCeNSVVtkvmcTTizmO9o5fRYCt5of0An1j3
3MxfH018IEujfLjbboeE7RWc
=TKKd
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

Re: Censorship

[Rik van Riel]

On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, DervishD wrote:

>     Yes, let's have a 'clean web' through censorship. This is an
> advance. And, oh, well, let's forbid too politically incorrect
> language, and, why not?

You seem to be forgetting one important detail.

The internet is not public property, it is a large group of
interconnected private properties.

The owners of each of these private properties can decide
for themselves what content they do and do not want to have
on their own properties.

So-called "freedom of speech" is something that exists in
public space, I can organise protests in public space and
you can't do anything about it, but if I were to held a
protest in your garden you'd have every right to kick me
out. ;)

regards,

Rik
-- 
Bravely reimplemented by the knights who say "NIH".

http://www.surriel.com/		http://distro.conectiva.com/

Re: Censorship

[jdow]

From: "Rik van Riel" <riel@conectiva.com.br>
> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, DervishD wrote:
> 
> >     Yes, let's have a 'clean web' through censorship. This is an
> > advance. And, oh, well, let's forbid too politically incorrect
> > language, and, why not?
> 
> You seem to be forgetting one important detail.
> 
> The internet is not public property, it is a large group of
> interconnected private properties.
> 
> The owners of each of these private properties can decide
> for themselves what content they do and do not want to have
> on their own properties.
> 
> So-called "freedom of speech" is something that exists in
> public space, I can organise protests in public space and
> you can't do anything about it, but if I were to held a
> protest in your garden you'd have every right to kick me
> out. ;)

More to the serious point here, Rik, he is trying to remove one
of the more excellent twit filter tools that exists. Most of the
time emails which are heavy in profanity are from people who I
have little or no desire to deal with in their "current" mental
state. When they cool off a little and are no longer using
profanity they are rational enough to listen to problem solutions,
in most cases. Of course, there are people who seem to be utterly
unable to avoid profanity. There was a supervisor for the manufacturing
floor at one company where I worked for awhile. He always invaded a
person's personal space for any level of conversation and proceeded
to lace his conversation with "dirty words" as his punctuation marks.
I learned to avoid him. He was also one of the contributing factors,
a modest one to be sure, that led to my leaving that company after a
year and five months. (And no, he did not show any of the other "tics"
of Tourette's (sp?) Syndrome.)

{^_^}

Re: Censorship

[John W Fort]

>> On Sun, 28 Jul 2002, DervishD wrote:
>> 
>> >     Yes, let's have a 'clean web' through censorship. This is an
>> > advance. And, oh, well, let's forbid too politically incorrect
Get your hands off your private parts and read DervishD's original post ratrher than responding to a cascade of stupidity.

He mentioned the word "p.o.r.n", which triggered a spam filter.  End of story.

Clueless farts.

Get a life, and stop wasting bandwidth if you can't contribute.