| |
test |
| |
AndrewD (17:34 10/12/2004)
ilcook (18:05 10/12/2004)
andypoole (18:08 10/12/2004)
Phlamethrower (18:35 10/12/2004)
AndrewD (19:22 10/12/2004)
Loris (19:36 10/12/2004)
AndrewD (19:51 10/12/2004)
Loris (21:30 10/12/2004)
AndrewD (22:37 10/12/2004)
Loris (18:26 13/12/2004)
AndrewD (19:58 10/12/2004)
john (00:54 11/12/2004)
|
| |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #60593, posted by ad at 17:34, 10/12/2004 |
Posts: 3262
|
riscos
RiscOS
RISC OS |
| |
 |
| |
|
Ian Cook |
Message #60594, posted by ilcook at 18:05, 10/12/2004, in reply to message #60593 |
 Resident idiot
Posts: 1075
|
riscos
RiscOS
RISC OS
That's the question. isn't it.  |
| |
|
| |
|
Andrew Poole |
Message #60595, posted by andypoole at 18:08, 10/12/2004, in reply to message #60594 |
Posts: 5558
|
riscos
RiscOS
RISC OS
That's the question. isn't it.
It's RISC OS.
http://www.riscos.com/faqs/spelling_and_pronunciation.htm
[Edited by andypoole at 18:09, 10/12/2004] |
| |
|
| |
|
Jeffrey Lee |
Message #60597, posted by Phlamethrower at 18:35, 10/12/2004, in reply to message #60595 |
 Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot Hot stuff
Posts: 15100
|
Perhaps we should add the incorrect spellings to the swear word filter?  |
| |
|
| |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #60609, posted by ad at 19:22, 10/12/2004, in reply to message #60597 |
Posts: 3262
|
Perhaps we should add the incorrect spellings to the swear word filter? As I was doing, and this was the test post for it.
But it will change http://www.riscos.com/ to http://www.RISC OS.com/ and I can't be bothered to faff about with it now. |
| |
|
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #60612, posted by Loris at 19:36, 10/12/2004, in reply to message #60609 |
 Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
And with this posting exchange, the secret was out, and the arms race between the swearers and the censors was on!  |
| |
|
| |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #60615, posted by ad at 19:51, 10/12/2004, in reply to message #60612 |
Posts: 3262
|
flipping heck! I test something, and it clearly didn't work, so I removed it straight away and you get a little hissy fit about it. |
| |
|
| |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #60617, posted by ad at 19:58, 10/12/2004, in reply to message #60612 |
Posts: 3262
|
(o)
[Edited by AndrewD at 19:59, 10/12/2004] |
| |
|
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #60632, posted by Loris at 21:30, 10/12/2004, in reply to message #60615 |
Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
Hissy fit?
Personally I don't like censorship of inconsequential things, and particularly not when filters misfire like yours did. But I'm still in good humour, indeed this has considerable amusement potential. I do appreciate the inventiveness people can come up with to subvert such systems.
Do you remember the story about Scunthorpe? I do.
What about the one about a lady called Babcock? Brilliant. (She was refused entry to some site, so she eventually registered as Babpenis.)
And of course, Socketwatcher, in the Kon bar's own forums. |
| |
|
| |
|
Andrew Duffell |
Message #60635, posted by ad at 22:37, 10/12/2004, in reply to message #60632 |
Posts: 3262
|
You need to chill out mister. I tested something to see if it would work. Hence the posts in the test forum and you get all upset over it. I don't see anyone else getting upset, and you'll might want to know that drobe tried (but scrapped) a similar concept several months ago, so it happens everywhere.
It's not like I wasn't testing it, and just applying random filters to things. |
| |
|
| |
|
John D |
Message #60636, posted by john at 00:54, 11/12/2004, in reply to message #60593 |
Member
Posts: 261
|
It looks like you're writing a letter... would you like me to correct all your typing to american versions? :P |
| |
|
| |
|
Tony Haines |
Message #60705, posted by Loris at 18:26, 13/12/2004, in reply to message #60635 |
Ha ha, me mine, mwahahahaha
Posts: 1025
|
AndrewD, honestly, I wasn't upset. I understand what you were doing now, but I didn't then. The only one I saw getting in a tizz was you. As far as I was concerned, I found a bug in the forums, which I reported in the appropriate place. I didn't realise at that time that you'd just added it in then. (Your comment about my post being 'corrected' threw me off the scent there).
Incidentally, (and this is off-topic, but it might help you understand) I never argued about what the spelling actually should be, just that it is very easy to get mixed up. As you can see from the link Poolie posted, there are indeed three official variants of R{ISC|isc}[_]XX. And as I pointed out, the 4th also exists.
So my point was that where all the necessary information is there, we as a group can not afford to be so pedantic about these unimportant differences.
As I think I've shown, making such a big deal about it is overall probably a bad_thingTM, and likely off-putting to potential converts. |
| |
|
| |
|
