Smut filter: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 26: | Line 26: | ||
Found term [\ss\s?h\s?i\s?t\s] in BODY_TEXT, score is 1<br> | Found term [\ss\s?h\s?i\s?t\s] in BODY_TEXT, score is 1<br> | ||
Number of hits for this term: 1<br> | Number of hits for this term: 1<br> | ||
Matched text: shit}}}}Literally, you cannot make this shit up. The captioned message came back from a message which, confessedly, ''did'' contain the word “shit”. No objections, I guess — prudes gonna be prudes — and what good would the machines of loving grace be if they couldn’t supercharge corporate primness — but how that end is | Matched text: shit}}}}Literally, you cannot make this shit up. The captioned message came back from a message is all that got through of a message which, confessedly, ''did'' contain the word “shit”. No objections, I guess — prudes gonna be prudes — and what good would the machines of loving grace be if they couldn’t at least supercharge corporate primness? — but how that puritan end is met by stripping out and binning all the clean words, and saving up, amplifying and telegraphing the only “profane”<ref>Quaint, right?</ref> one, repeatedly, at the poor fragile recipient whose delicate sense of decency the smutbot was presumably defending in the first place, we can can only speculate. | ||
{{Sa}} | {{Sa}} | ||
*[[Email]] | *[[Email]] | ||
*[[All watched over by machines of loving grace]] | *[[All watched over by machines of loving grace]] | ||
{{Ref}} | {{Ref}} | ||
Latest revision as of 22:09, 4 October 2021
|
Office anthropology™
|
Literally, you cannot make this shit up. The captioned message came back from a message is all that got through of a message which, confessedly, did contain the word “shit”. No objections, I guess — prudes gonna be prudes — and what good would the machines of loving grace be if they couldn’t at least supercharge corporate primness? — but how that puritan end is met by stripping out and binning all the clean words, and saving up, amplifying and telegraphing the only “profane”[2] one, repeatedly, at the poor fragile recipient whose delicate sense of decency the smutbot was presumably defending in the first place, we can can only speculate.