I forgot about the new philosophy!
I forgot about the new philosophy!
Exactly. See, at first it was incongruous, irrational, absurd. The idea of replacing the word “porn” with “lichen”. There’s just no connection there. Definitely disturbing. Like:
“Salvador Dalí, Lobster Telephone, 1936, plastic, painted plaster and mixed media, 17.8 x 33.0 x 17.8 cm, Tate Gallery, London. This sculpture is a classic example of the Surrealist practice of juxtaposing otherwise unrelated everyday items. The Surrealists valued the mysterious and provocative effect of such incongruities. Dalí believed that his objects expressed the secret desires of the unconscious, and that lobsters and telephones reveal the prominence of the sexuality.”
http://www.artlex.com/ArtLex/s/surrealism.html
Then, when the computer makes it look like you are replacing a word with itself! So then it isn’t incongruous but very definitely confusing and disorienting. It is ABSURD!!! That is why it is so funny. It is totally insane, irrational. It is the ultimate non-sense. We should enjoy these situations when they come up !
I don’t mean to be suggesting that the idea of replacing “porn” with “lichen” was crazy because it wasn’t. It solved a problem. But the idea just happened to lend itself beautifully to absurdity when it was discussed.
"Salvador Dalí, Lobster Telephone, 1936, plastic, painted plaster and mixed media, 17.8 x 33.0 x 17.8 cm, Tate Gallery, London.
Hey! I thought this thread was about “p0rn,” not “prawn…”
Reminds me of Maxwell Smart’s old nemesis, the “Craw.”
The internet is for porn?
AHA! Months and months later, I finally get to the bottom of why there are no pictures of various bore fungi and/or mosses in the Flute Lichen thread.
I’m so disappointed.
(And I’m so slow on the uptake!)
so … ah … you’re slow … and … ah … you have no moss?
Good point, edited out, feel free to change my quote below.
That would make a most cool bumpersticker in the best Dada tradition.
But what I want to know is, now that I see the cutesie way you got past the word filter, how does that affect our “friends” the spambots? 
After all, it’s the moderators that have to do the cleanup, in case you care.
Never mind that: the question of fouling one’s nest comes to mind. In case anyone cares.
See above.
I was wondering if I could do something without considering whether I should.
the bots will have the same issues as the porn filter…
Well if you can not do something
does it matter if you should not do it?
I’m a bit thicker than usual this morning. Could you elucidate?
Honey, you ain’t thick, ya just ain’t spent no time there. 
both are software search algorithms that are looking for specific characters or a group of characters (usually with white space on either side, like - blank “p” “o” “r” “n” blank -).
bots would also be looking for .com, .net… a bit cuter is - blank BunchOfStuff “@” BunchOfSruff “.com” blank -
pBB has a bit of software that reads this junk from the box we type it into and formats it for the page (or the preview panel) C&F has added a scan for the string - blank “p” “o” “r” “n” blank - and replaces it with lichen.
notpornstring <— no blankies
I’m still lost.
I guess what I’m asking is that, in layman’s terms, does the bypassing of the filter negate its function? IOW, instead of the intended “lichen”, I see the other word. Does the search algorithm benefit, as it were, from this, too?
when in doubt … test
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?p=626997&highlight=porn#626997
note: the lichen after the highlight= If I edit, and indeed when I pasted it, it is that 4 letter word.
it would appear that the search & replacement thing is run against the search criteria prior to the search being executed.
'Kay. I’m not getting an anwer to my question that I can understand yet, though. Sorry. 
I believe the point is being made that the search for a bad word (the precursor to ‘lichen’) looks for very specific instances of the word, and is easily beaten (for instance by substituting the number zero for the letter ‘o’), as well as other common measures spammers use to get past email filters. Other services scanning the C&F forums may or may not be more sophisticated in identifying the bad word. So Google, its ads, office bad word filters, etc. might not be as easily fooled. So, C&F might be blocked from certain machines, in offices, libraries, etc. regardless of C&F administrators attempt to keep things a little more family friendly.
Kevin Krell
The “filter” is only done on the way to the web page.
This is a sub task to the bit that translates the junk in the “Text area” (I’s typing in one of them right now)
The tags (bold, size, color, quote, HTML ,etc.) are all parsed and changed to attributes, instead of text pictures are fetched…bunch o’stuff…“filter” is a piece if it.
Now I’m dense. Are you saying that the word substitution only occurs on display of the C&F thread to the person viewing it (a run-time conversion as it is viewed)? But the bad content is actually still in the database as it was typed? Thus, other functions that directly access the database of messages will still find the bad word (which might include search functions, 'bots, etc.)?
Kevin Krell
I’m saying that based on how a couple of searches looked to me that the above is true.
I do not believe that bots directly access the database. I think that they read the returned HTML, just like the browser.
porn
quote this post…