Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Change to the swear filter

Options
  • 05-03-2009 9:50pm
    #1
    Slutmonkey57b
    Registered Users Posts: 5,560 ✭✭✭


    Is there any chance this could be changed to filter out people who write "should of" or "could of" or "would of"?

    It's bending my eyeballs and undermining any support I might have had for the plight of teachers in the country.
    Post edited by Shield on


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,224 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    If you do it for them, how will they ever learn?


  • Options
    #3
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    You should of posted this in helpdesk, then maybe you would of gotten an answer that you could of been happy with..


  • Options
    #4
    eVeNtInE
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭eVeNtInE


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #5
    AckwelFoley
    Registered Users Posts: 12,556 ✭✭✭✭AckwelFoley


    Its a swear filter not a grammer filter


  • Options
    #6
    Slutmonkey57b
    Registered Users Posts: 5,560 ✭✭✭Slutmonkey57b


    Steve wrote: »
    You should of posted this in helpdesk, then maybe you would of gotten an answer that you could of been happy with..

    I came to the conclusion many years ago the helpdesk was a forum for approved trolling.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    RoundyMooney
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,910 ✭✭✭✭RoundyMooney


    You should of course consider all eventualities when it comes to the swear filter.

    Even one missing comma.


  • Options
    #8
    Mr Quiet
    Closed Accounts Posts: 35 ✭Mr Quiet


    Chicken Little.

    Sky. Stuff.


  • Options
    #9
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    More specifically, "should of went".


  • Options
    #10
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    snyper wrote: »
    Its a swear filter not a grammer filter

    It's grammar! GRAMMAAAAAARRRRRRGGGHH!!!!! I'LL KILL YOU!!!! FFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUUUU!!!!!!!!!! :mad:

    inmymouth3.jpg


  • Options
    #11
    Overheal
    Registered Users Posts: 83,224 ✭✭✭✭Overheal


    dyslexia%20t-shirt.jpg


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    eVeNtInE
    Registered Users Posts: 7,020 ✭✭✭eVeNtInE


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #13
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    Special Kay wrote: »
    Grammarians insistence on using should have in place of should of and so on, is merely a pedantic, stylistic "grammatical rule" that has no basis in the actual grammatical rules that language uses. If that's the way people talk, then that's the way people talk.
    Where did you get that from? People write it as "should of" because what they say is pronounced the exact same way: "should've".


  • Options
    #14
    sceptre
    Registered Users Posts: 19,608 ✭✭✭✭sceptre


    Special Kay wrote: »
    Grammarians insistence on using should have in place of should of and so on, is merely a pedantic, stylistic "grammatical rule" that has no basis in the actual grammatical rules that language uses. If that's the way people talk, then that's the way people talk.

    Lrn2Linguistics.
    Pfft, these primary school teachers and their excuses:)

    (even I, with my insistence that language is about communication rather than mere correctness, recognise that we need to have some reasonable rules rather than have language schisms just because children fall asleep in class too often)


  • Options
    #15
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Special Kay wrote: »
    Grammarians insistence on using should have in place of should of and so on, is merely a pedantic, stylistic "grammatical rule" that has no basis in the actual grammatical rules that language uses. If that's the way people talk, then that's the way people talk.

    Lrn2Linguistics.

    By that logic, the differences between there/their/they're are pedantic and stylistic too, as they are pronounced the same way.

    Fair enough you might say, but I don't really think that the way people talk should play into grammar and spelling, in the sense that we don't exactly spell everything phonetically, or deviate spelling on account of accent, roysh?


  • Options
    #16
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    Special Kay wrote: »
    There, their and they're are separate entries in our mental dictionaries that just happen to be pronounced the same.

    The same could be said of "Should've/should of", and in general I find a lot of people don't grasp any difference between there, their and they're and will often use 'there' as a catch-all in those situations, so I doubt there's really any distinction for those people.


  • Options
    #17
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    Lord lantern jaysus, not another fucking grammar thread. :o


  • Options
    #18
    Karl Hungus
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,130 ✭✭✭✭Karl Hungus


    stovelid wrote: »
    Lord lantern jaysus, not another fucking grammar thread. :o

    They'll stop when people learn to be grammatically correct. :)

    By the way, far too many people are saying 'rediculous' all the time. It's ridiculous!


  • Options
    #19
    Red Sleeping Beauty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,443 ✭✭✭Red Sleeping Beauty


    Maybe Web 2.0 will weed out those you can't spell or use grammar properly.
    *double checks spelling*

    *triple checks spelling*


  • Options
    #20
    stovelid
    Closed Accounts Posts: 27,252 ✭✭✭✭stovelid


    I just knew those pictures were too good to last.


  • Options
    #21
    Dudess
    Closed Accounts Posts: 37,214 ✭✭✭✭Dudess


    I wonder is it the first case ever of fappage to a Feedback thread...


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    Steve
    Moderators, Category Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 22,584 CMod ✭✭✭✭Steve


    Dudess wrote: »
    I wonder is it the first case ever of fappage to a Feedback thread...
    :eek:
    Dude!

    :D


  • Options
    #23
    K-9
    Registered Users Posts: 43,311 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    I hate using the phrase "you have little to be worrying about" but Yes, you have little to be worrying about.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • Options
    #24
    Sherifu
    Registered Users Posts: 17,727 ✭✭✭✭Sherifu


    7d28c8f3b1e020ffbe40d2cbe71b2969.jpg


    836a39e73b01a580642867c885c9f319.jpg


    4469aad3914b121a0ec9a205fd0dca2d.jpg


    In conclusion............ wheelbarrow.


  • Options
    #25
    Kinetic^
    Closed Accounts Posts: 13,249 ✭✭✭✭Kinetic^


    Karl Hungus wrote: »
    They'll stop when people learn to be grammatically correct. :)

    By the way, far too many people are saying 'rediculous' all the time. It's ridiculous!

    It's actually ridonkulous Mr. Hungus. :pac:


Advertisement