SansFin

I like: The Invisible Boy (1957) very much. It is a simple little movie with no great pretensions. I hope you will note that it received no nominations for acting, writing, direction or any other quality and manage your expectations accordingly.

I must wonder if there was even the tiniest, briefest moment in which you attempted to resist posting that over even the smallest bit of remorse after you pressed: Post.

I feel it is fair to give you warning that I did learn a new word today. It is: "conchophilately." I eagerly await opportunity to use it appropriately in a thread but I will admit that I believe that I may have to wait for a very long time for an suitable topic to appear. I expect now that you will show no surprise nor confusion when it appears.

I have watched several episodes of: Match Game with Gene Rayburn, Charles Nelson Reilly and Brett Somers et al. It is obvious that drinking and perhaps smoking herbals was standard practice.

It is a software bug!

I find it odd that you brought up that point. It was of recent that an article concerning dyslectics learning to read Chinese ideograms led me to wonder how much we know about how we read which led me to information concerning word-forms and to aggression implicit in coarse language and to many other things. This thread has allowed me an opportunity to trot out what I learned and give the impression that I have wide-ranging knowledge and can speak authoritatively on a wide variety of subjects. My attitude is that it is pointless to worry about such things. The vast majority of readers will know what word or words were asterisked out of existence by AutoCensor if they were used appropriately.

The current concern is Moderator editing of posts to remove words which were munged. It does not concern software and I have seen no posts apologizing for the current software.

Darguo, Lowest Common Denominator in this instance is being HomoSapien. It is part of basic human psychology. Hadza are semi-isolated tribe of hunter-gatherers in Africa. It has been noted that their body language indicates subtle shifts towards defensiveness when exposed to coarse language of other tribes. This makes sense to me in light of the fact that primary exposure to strong or coarse language for most people is when some person is inordinately angry and may become aggressive with little or no warning. I feel it is significant that men who regularly hunt and kill water buffalo with hand-hewn spears subconsciously cringe when strangers swear. These natural feelings can taint a person's enjoyment even when the feelings are not so pronounced as to be recognizable. Unrestricted strong or coarse language can make a site as attractive as a park next to a meat-packing plant.

It may be to reduce hostility. I am not a psychologist nor have I read a great deal of the literature concerning this matter but those things which I have learned and read have allowed me to form an understanding suitable for my worldview. Strong or coarse language is seen as an indication of strength. The association is strong: sailing was for most of history the most physically demanding employment in the world and sailors had no need to adhere to strict conventions of polite society and so: "swearing like a sailor' identified a person who had no fear of offending others because they were able to meet troubles of their world on their own and did not rely upon peers to sustain them. Strong or coarse language is used often as means of intimidation. The stereotypical drill sergeant berates recruits with transcendent obscenities in order to establish dominance and make them question their own strengths. I believe that modern psychology discounts the concept that any person is truly and completely 'normal' but there are reactions which are considered typical, average and not associated with any particular neurosis or mental frailty. One of these reactions is that exposure to strong or coarse language from outside a peer group creates a subtle need for defense. I believe it is rational that a forum dedicated to discourse of a common interest and a free exchange of ideas should wish to prevent posturing of strength, intimidation or causes of defensiveness. To have a list of banned words is a common step towards this goal. I would find it very difficult to defend the inclusion of all of the words currently in automatic censor's list but I recognize that some list is necessary if this forum is not to become 4Chan or 9Gag. The operators of a site bear the onus of selecting words for such a list and I do not envy them the task.

I hope that you will please note: I can not speak for TCM nor Moderators as I have no association with them but for my being a user of this site and so it is not possible for me to provide an authoritative or definitive answer. It is my nature to wonder at all times why policies are in place and to attempt to understand them in terms of possible circumstances and rationales which led to their creation and implementation. What I offer here is my conceptualization of the reasons for the policy: ----- The fabulous Bill Murray once stated: "Accordion to a recent survey, replacing words with the names of musical instruments in a sentence often goes undetected." This statement has floated around the Internet for more than ten years: "Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae. The rset can be a toatl mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe." I present these to demonstrate that a word often retains its meaning even when it is not presented in normal form. The first letter and length are often all that is required for our wetware to recognize the word-form, interpret it as the word, and move on to the next word. I suggest that you read: "Rawlinson, G. E. (1976) The significance of letter position in word recognition. University of Nottingham, Nottingham UK" if you wish to know more of this. It is only in cases of word-form dyslexia that people consistently read and interpret words letter-by-letter. It is therefore that to present the first letter and an appropriate number of asterisks or the first letter and substitution of remaining letters with letters of similar shape is functionally identical to presenting the unaltered word. Why would a functionally identical presentation be acceptable if presenting the original is not acceptable? I will present also this example: My insertion of that as an image bypassed the automatic censor. The software is incapable of determining whether any of the words are not acceptable. Am I to be free to present any words which I wish to use if I am willing to perform a simple screen capture, crop and upload rather than typing the words directly into the reply box? That I choose language other than English will stymie Moderators also. Have I won the right to post any words I wish here because I have placed my posts above simple, automatic judgment? I will argue also that use of all asterisks or to allow automatic censor to replace whole word with asterisks will serve the same purpose as using alterations of the word when the word is truly appropriate and justified because people who are familiar with the word and its usage will automatically identify which word is meant. This is cleaner than using altered word because a person who is not familiar with the word or who is offended by coarse language will simply interpret a series of asterisks as: "bad word" and move on while an alteration of the word will serve to highlight the word and will not truly disguise it. Quotes in newspapers and magazine have completely different set of rules which they must obey and are therefore not meaningfully similar to this situation. For them to remove objectionable words completely is editing the quote which is not acceptable under journalistic ethics and may open them to liability for effectively mis-quoting the person. Using all asterisks is not considered acceptable because there may be instances when it is not definitive which spoken word was censored in print. This could open them to liability if the person felt they were portrayed as using the r-word when they truly used the y-word which is far less objectionable among their social peers. Use of first letter and asterisks in this context retains the integrity of the quote while moderating it for readership.

I find it particularly amusing in light of their excellent decision to air: Just Tell Me What You Want (1980) which is perfectly delightful comedy which happens to contain most of the single-word expletives considered highly inappropriate in polite society. I believe the rationale might be based on decisions of context. I believe that all would agree that the use of certain words is justified in some situations and circumstances while the same words would be quite inappropriate in other situations or circumstances. Words and phrases in movies were deemed appropriate by writers, actors, directors and others with decision-making powers. TCM defers to those decisions by not editing movies. It would be grand and glorious mess if Moderators were asked to judge whether certain words or phrases were appropriate in each individual post in which they might appear. Arguments over each decision would flood the boards. Invectives would roil the clouds. Charges of bias and ignorance would shroud us in darkness. Such a cataclysm can be avoided only by total ban of certain words or phrases. Those who would use those words or phrases only when truly appropriate suffer a little but set against this is the suffering all would face if there were no standards of decency. I would accept such a rationale but I will continue to chuckle over the results.

Greener's Law states: "Never argue with a man who buys ink by the barrel." I love this advice very much because even a moment's thought brings realization that you can never out-argue an editor because they will win by sheer volume and they can permanently silence your voice in their medium if you exceed their tolerance. Perhaps an updated version should be: Never argue with a person who buys bandwidth by the terabyte. I have been free with my criticism of Moderators when I have felt it was appropriate. I have kept in mind that I could not expect to change their minds or influence their future decisions. I vented and moved on. I suspect greatly that criticism of Moderators will at all times be ineffectual because they are enforcing mandated rules. They would have to convince The-Powers-That-Be to change rules before they could change basis of their moderation. I feel this is quite unlikely to happen. It is my nature to tilt at windmills only when I have a more subtle purpose which will benefit from my foes being distracted. Your levels of Quixotism and guile may differ.

I understood the answers. I believe that I understand the basis for them. It is not my place to criticize them and my opinions carry no weight with those who make decisions regarding such matters.

I believe the difference is subtle but significant: A question posed to users of the forum may have many answers and those answers are open to discussion, debate or refinement. Moderators are effectively extraforaneous as they do not participate in discussions or offer opinions. Questions asked of them are not being posed to users of the forum and so discussions or debate is extraneous to the purpose of the thread. Answers given by Moderators are immutable and so discussion or debate is tilting at windmills and no good can come of it. I believe that Moderator's answer would have benefited from further explanation but it is not my place to criticize how well a poster writes to be understood.

I expected it because it seemed logical. Her original post was two questions. Moderator answered those questions. No further discussion was necessary or constructive as the rules are fixed. I suspect a person would have to reach those above Forum Moderators to have rules or policies changed.

I would not wish to claim definitive credit because I know that some posts in your thread were deleted. I am sorry that I did not think to add one which might stump most people. I must wonder if Moderator would object to use of: чорт. I did at one time use a blissfully precise word which would never be allowed in English. I took care to change one letter so that word could not be Googled. It remained obvious to any who read languages of my area. That was extreme circumstance. I could be truly sneaky and use English words which are direct translations of idioms and so are not 'bad' in and of their own self but which represent very strong feelings.

I am very sorry to say that I simply do not understand this uproar. I believe that reasonable adults constantly adjust their word choices depending on social context. I believe that I should perhaps circumlocute here because I do not know if the t-word is considered acceptable within this forum. I refer here to: The plumbing fixture which is the access portal to a sanitary sewer system The 'porcelain throne' The *** The 'microphone' in use when talking to God on the big white telephone How a reasonable adult expresses their need to use the device varies considerably depending on social situation: When in semi-formal setting among polite people: "I must egest my dinner." "I must visit the little girl's room / restroom / washroom." "I must powder my nose." When in informal setting among polite people: "I must answer a call of nature." "I must use the bathroom." When with children: "I am number one but I must number two." "Old stinky time." I will not attempt to post phrases which many might use when at free-for-all party after third bottle of vodka. No phrases are used when in formal situations because such things simply are not referenced in any manner. The social conventions for this forum have been established by The-Powers-That-Be. This includes which words are acceptable to either state or represent by alteration of a few letters. It is responsibility of Moderators to uphold those conventions. "The English language has a total of 698,000 words. We ask you to avoid a hundredth of one percent of these..." - Angels in the Outfield (1951)

I read your thread with interest. I made no comment therein because you were asking questions of Moderators. I do not remember seeing that sentiment expressed in your thread and it is not there now. You may perhaps be referring to a sentence in my first post in this thread: "I must admit a certain perverse amusement with the dichotomy that the common word for fluid bodily waste is not considered appropriate here while a movie aired recently on TCM contained the d-word, s-word, f-word and c-word."

I believe that you may be taking the universe out of context. I feel that all forums are moderated. Those which have no official moderators come under the control of the most virulent posters who overwhelm and intimidate all who do not follow their rules. Failure to heed 'established' beliefs and behaviour means your meaningful posts will be lost in morass of invective-filled beratements. I do not find moderation within this forum onerous. I believe that all posts which are edited by Moderators carry notice at the bottom stating that it was edited. The notice will often contain information also as to why the editing was done. I feel this is significantly different from revisioning done in: 1984. I do not agree with need for removal of some words which are regularly purged from this forum but I admit that there are many words which I feel are not appropriate for a forum and so it is merely a matter of choice and not a matter of censorship versus anarchy. I feel that part of being adult is realizing when and where some things are not socially appropriate. The Code of Conduct establishes broad rules. The editing of posts refines the definition of what is not acceptable. I feel that a person who has had a post edited should take it as advisement that they strayed into socially inappropriate territory. I would take that to mean that I should mind my ways or go elsewhere. I find that occasional need to rephrase a sentence so as to avoid using a banned word is a small price to pay for having access to a forum which is civil outside of political threads. I must admit a certain perverse amusement with the dichotomy that the common word for fluid bodily waste is not considered appropriate here while a movie aired recently on TCM contained the d-word, s-word, f-word and c-word.

She was indeed quite perfect in the role. I love very much how she tells him that she does not want to fire the security chief. The delivery conveys a wealth of knowledge. She has the pivotal role. The movie would have been far less with any other person in the role.

I am sorry to say that I do not know what you might mean. Did you miss important parts of the banter or did you find the sub-plots and machinations difficult to follow?

I am happy that some watched and enjoyed it. I find the pacing and banter perfect for this type of story. I feel that he very much is his character. His body language precisely matches his dialogue. I love very much how he sets up and delivers his zingers. I feel that such finesse goes beyond simple acting. This is his only role which is to my taste and I love him in it. I am happy that they did not chose to air an edited version. I know the language may seem very strong for TCM audience but I feel that each word is appropriate in context. I find that such words come to be nearly invisible because they are simply the best word to say in that context. To edit them out would be calling attention to them and that would destroy ambiance of the movie. I do hope that TCM will air it at a time when more people will be able to watch it.

I must wonder if that movie is in any manner similar to the definitive BBC production regarding camouflage:

This is a truly wonderful schedule! It is very amazing that it is your first. You are to be chastised for not participating in prior Challenges! I like very much: Max von Sydow as Star of the Month. I truly did giggle when I saw that you did include variant for Canadian schedule. I assume that you are very familiar with which movies are never shown there. I thank you for bringing us a great schedule!

Capuchin has a photograph of a railroad overpass in Michigan which has: Lionel in white block letters on the side.