As I said, only the utterly naieve will find relief in such
a filter. Either you change the meaning or intent of the
poster - or you don't. If you don't, it's still profanity.
"Shit" isn't profanity because it's an 's' followed by an 'h'
followed by an 'i' and trailed by a 't'. It's the meaning that's important. Regardless whether
you call 'shit', 'crap' or 'fluffy bun', it's the same
smelly substance.
What's in a name? That which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet.
-- William Shakespeare, Romeo and Juliet
Abigail | [reply] |
Oh but think of the fun this type of filter could provide. Perhaps we could start another node, call it obfu-filter. By substituting one word that could be offenive to another person with another word that could be offensive to a different person, we could totally obscure the intent, readability, and meaning of the original writer.
Perhaps we could replace all letters with ~, so there would be no confusion as to which word may have been offensive, hence no chance of offense.
Have fun and thanks for an interesting reply!
dageek
| [reply] |
I think it's obvious to the reader that profanity was used when the reader sees the word 'shit'. Seriously, if this mythical reader has a problem being exposed to such a word, it's their responsibility to disconnect their computer from the Internet.
-- Mike
--
XML::Simpler does not require XML::Parser or a SAX parser.
It does require File::Slurp.
-- grantm, perldoc XML::Simpler
| [reply] |
