TexasCHLforum.com

We've had a few members lately who are overtly defeating the profanity word filter by adding periods, dashes, spaces, etc. after each letter. It's bad enough when people post profanity, abbreviated profanity or pseudo-profanity innocently because they didn't read the rules or the profanity warning that appears in every sub-forum. But when a poster sees the word filter has changed what they wrote and then intentionally edits the word to defeat the filter, it's more than a little insulting to the Moderators.

From this point on, when someone intentionally defeats the word filter, the post will be deleted and the member's registration will be suspended for one week. It won't matter if the post is one sentence long, or an entire page, it will be deleted. Intentional conduct is viewed quite differently from mistakes.

Chas.

Simple enough for a country boy to understand.

Charles L. Cotton wrote:From this point on, when someone intentionally defeats the word filter, the post will be deleted and the member's registration will be suspended for one week.

I'll add that if anyone gets upset by being punished under this rule, then they are likely not a good fit for this professional forum anyway.

I like it, but think that one week is not long enough.

chewy555 wrote:I like it, but think that one week is not long enough.

I like it too, but a week should be plenty. If they return and didn't learn their leson though, I think it should be a perma-ban.

Banned might be a better option. Of course any one who would go to those measures might not care if they are banned.

There is a word for a place with no rules--------Anarchy! For those who think that each day when they arise that they will decide which rules to obey and which to ignore, consider this: No social group in recorded history has ever found that acceptable.

That's the difference between us and the bad guys - we follow the rules.

Texian wrote:There is a word for a place with no rules--------Anarchy! For those who think that each day when they arise that they will decide which rules to obey and which to ignore, consider this: No social group in recorded history has ever found that acceptable.

That's the difference between us and the bad guys - we follow the rules.

Is anarchy such a bad thing?

Liberty wrote:Is anarchy such a bad thing?

When all men behave in a right and responsible manner, government is no longer needed. I don't see that happening in this fallen world. We still need to designate authorities to protect the society from the bad guys who wish to do us harm, unfortunately.

I beg Chas.'s indulgence, because he has asked that "anarchy" not be advocated here on this forum. I believe he intended that we not propose unchecked violence. I don't even propose anarcho-capitalism, but not because I find it undesirable. Instead, I find that government is inevitable, so it should be as weak and limited as possible. FWIW, the authors or our Constitution agreed, resulting in the wonderful document they produced.

Texian wrote:There is a word for a place with no rules--------Anarchy!

The definition of "anarchy" is "without rulers", not "rules". Rules can be voluntarily agreed to -- we call that a contract. Folks in Houston are well acquainted with restrictive deed covenants, HOAs, etc. They don't need rulers to tell them what they can and can't do with their property: they knew the rules were before signing the contract.

For those who think that each day when they arise that they will decide which rules to obey and which to ignore, consider this: No social group in recorded history has ever found that acceptable.

Except for this, that, and all of these examples.

The current example of Somalia is not a peaceful paradise, but no one ever promised that freedom would be pretty. Anarchy is dynamic: a constantly shifting set of understanding between people. Think of it as freelance employment, where the terms are constantly in flux. It might be hectic, but it's not chaos.

"Anarchy" doesn't mean "bomb-throwing leftists", and it doesn't mean "chaos". There are numerous historical examples of societies relying on voluntaryism rather than authoritarianism. Some were peaceful and orderly, others were disorderly and violent.

At the same time, history is replete with examples of violent chaos under authoritarian rule.

Kevin