sde Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 why not just ask/warn/edit members instead of just closing threads. this is a perfectly funny thread to comment on. at least i can understand the last poop thread that got closed .. making fun of someone's death isn't that funny. (originally posted by GardenWeasel) http://www.azcentral.com/offbeat/ar...drunk29-ON.html Man tries to fool breathalyzer with feces in mouth Canadian Press Mar. 29, 2005 06:09 PM TORONTO - An accused drunk driver tried but failed to foil a police breathalyzer after stuffing his mouth full of feces. "I don't think alcohol alone would make you do something as disgusting as that," South Simcoe Police Insp. Tom McDonald said. "I've never heard of anything like this before," said the 28-year police veteran. Arrested Sunday after his Ford pickup was pulled over on a highway just outside Barrie, Ont., the 59-year-old driver was loaded into a cruiser and taken to a police station for testing. En route, Sgt. James Buchanan said the prisoner vomited, urinated and defecated in the rear of the squad car. After arriving at the station, he said the man grabbed a handful of his own waste "and placed it in his mouth, attempting to trick the breathalyser machine." It didn't work, Buchanan said. He alleged the machine registered two readings of intoxication from samples the suspect provided. Both were more than twice the legal limit. Officers called in paramedics to check the man. "They helped him clean himself up," McDonald said. "This fellow was in dire need of help. It's bizarre, but the effects of alcohol can make people do strange things." The motorist was charged with impaired driving, plus driving with more than 80 milligrams of alcohol in 100 millilitres of blood in his system. He was released on a promise to appear in a Bradford, Ont., court on May 12. South Simcoe Police do not identify people they charge. McDonald said the cruiser took two hours to clean using industrial cleansers, "and it's back on the road." That tops the dude who ate his underwear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 Sde, you are correct. It is a perfectly funny thing to comment on, within the boundaries specified in the board rules for general conduct. If this post is revived again, and people continue to be puerile and adolescent then yes, this thread will be closed again. This is a general use forum and as such, members should be cognizant of the fact that some people don't like to see obscenity. Things can be discussed, even humorous stories such as this one, without the use of said language. If it cannot, if members cannot police themselves like adults, then what are the options left? People could comment on the desperation of the drunk, or perhaps there are studies as to the effectiveness of said activity in spoofing breathalyzers. There are many ways to discuss this topic, which, after all, appeared in a general-interest press outlet, and they refrained from using slang and/or obscenity so yes, it is possible. I don't mean to be a stick in the mud or stifle members' "creativity," but I don't think this stuff is all that difficult to understand. kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ellivnad Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 I don't think sde was debating whether the content was bad or not. The issue is how moderators deal with bad content. Locking the thread does little to fix anything. All the questionable content is still there and it will be days (weeks?) before it gets burried deep enough that most people wouldn't find it. Why not delete specific posts or edit them? .o0O0o. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sde Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 then what are the options left? vbulletin has a great 'language filter' built in .. it would save admins a lot of trouble. ( think i've mentioned this before ) as far as post content .. this is the generally funny forum .. i don't come here expecting to read much intelligent conversation. much respect for admins .. i run a couple communities myself. there is a happy medium that can be achieved without closing threads when someone says **** (that is what the language filter would do), .. that is all i meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommyh Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 (on topic) The Mythbusters did an episode on trying to fool the breathalizer test...they didn't try this one... Martin Luther - "Who loves not women, wine and song remains a fool his whole life long." EL4NFZT7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 I don't think sde was debating whether the content was bad or not. The issue is how moderators deal with bad content. Locking the thread does little to fix anything. All the questionable content is still there and it will be days (weeks?) before it gets burried deep enough that most people wouldn't find it. Why not delete specific posts or edit them? By the time you have to edit and delete posts more than likely it should be locked anyway. In my experience editing and deleting posts does nothing to deter some people continuing in the same vein within the thread, once it's gone bad it usually stays bad. Locking it puts a stop to it immediately. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 vbulletin has a great 'language filter' built in .. it would save admins a lot of trouble. ( think i've mentioned this before ) as far as post content .. this is the generally funny forum .. i don't come here expecting to read much intelligent conversation. much respect for admins .. i run a couple communities myself. there is a happy medium that can be achieved without closing threads when someone says **** (that is what the language filter would do), .. that is all i meant. Off-topic: There is a debate going on in mod-land, and the general consensus is that reliance upon the members is preferred to activating a swear filter. We can all work together to make the board a great place. Besides, swear filters just lead to all sorts of attempted work-arounds, substituting varied and sundry shift-level characters and abbreviations, which really makes things kooky. On-topic: The real question is can a breathalyzer be fooled? My guess is that the gentleman was hoping that police would be so profoudly disgusted that they wouldn't test him at all. One would hope that the reporter would follow up with the man once he sobers up, to find his rationale. And for the record, ick. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tide Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 My yardstick mostly is "would I mind if the boss caught me reading this at work". Obviously everyone's opinion is different and everyone's work is different. If a thread is beyond the line, deletion would be used, if it's grey area, a thread lock is fine. I know everyone wants a hard fast rule on acceptable and not-acceptable, but there is no solid line like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sde Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 i love mythbutsers .. i posted on their message boards once, but it's a pain in the butt. not arguing here, just discussing, so don't take this wrong, but here is my list of thoughts. 1. chances are, less than 1% will read the rules. 2. if i type a word that is not accepted, in its plain form, i just may not be aware of the rule. it gets edited out, no problem, now i know it's a rule. 3. if i purposely type a variation of the word, then i am blatently breaking the rules. 4. swearing will ALWAYS be an issue with new members who haven't been around or have not read the rules, and deleting/closing still makes more work. 5. if a thread is closed and it still has a swear word in it, then my boss still may mind if i'm reading something with a swear word. 6. personally i think most bosses would care more that you are spending time on non-work related things rather than if there was a swear word in it. none the less, it's cool that ur discussing it in admin land Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 As an example of how things can become completely rediculous I recently join a RV forum (since I now own a travel trailer) and used the word "crap" to describle a brake controller I purchased at Kragen. You guessed it, **** Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sde Posted March 30, 2005 Author Share Posted March 30, 2005 that is a crappy example since it is the admins who set which words are censored Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Jedimaster* Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 I had a mod harassing me last weekend about posting with the s-word, which is all over the board- I mean as far as members using it There's even some use of the (cringe) F word. If it's a problem, why not just filter it out? You're never going to get people to edit what they type if it's not filtered- even if you do filter words, you'll get people typing different things to get around the filter- those are the ones that are making a blatant attempt at breaking rules. So filter them out if you don't want them. That way you don't have moderators going around being the word police. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gtguy Posted March 30, 2005 Share Posted March 30, 2005 The above post is (well, was) an example. We don't really want this to be an environment where moderators have to run around being "word police." That part is up to the members. Once it is understood (and if it isn't, it should be by now) that obscenity is proscribed, then it should be up to the members to police themselves. None of us are children, who often take great joy in uttering "bad" words, so I would think that the self-policing would be a piece of cake. I just don't understand why that is so difficult. Finally, moderators don't "harass." Moderators attempt to bring attention to a member's transgressions in a private manner, usually via PM. It is up to the member how they choose to deal with the nudge. Kevin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Jedimaster* Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 The above post is (well, was) an example. We don't really want this to be an environment where moderators have to run around being "word police." That part is up to the members. Once it is understood (and if it isn't, it should be by now) that obscenity is proscribed, then it should be up to the members to police themselves. None of us are children, who often take great joy in uttering "bad" words, so I would think that the self-policing would be a piece of cake. I just don't understand why that is so difficult. Finally, moderators don't "harass." Moderators attempt to bring attention to a member's transgressions in a private manner, usually via PM. It is up to the member how they choose to deal with the nudge. Kevin You don't harass- this guy needs more to think about! I see what you're saying about the words themselves, but people tend to relax, especially around people they're comfortable with and just "shoot the s". The result is a little profanity- this isn't Disneyland, so what's the difference? I really don't understand why you would want to not filter a word but then get butthurt when someone says it :confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GBY Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 It's not gtguy's call on the filter. Please stop using that word jedimaster. Dave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest *Jedimaster* Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 It's not gtguy's call on the filter. Please stop using that word jedimaster. Dave. Will do. I really meant to just address it with everyone- not to aim it at GTGuy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tide Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Stef and I have been discussing content filtering over the last 3 days. Im rather irritated that at this point it would have been faster to just implement my idea -- instead of dissecting the essense of censorship altogether. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoxerGT2.5 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Geez....from crap eating to debating vocabulary. Talk about a 180! *Edit: Can I say crap......just dawned on me? OBAMA......One Big Ass Mistake America! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ih8vtec13 Posted March 31, 2005 Share Posted March 31, 2005 Why dont we just do an anyting goes or enter at your onw risk area so everyone is happy? Pottymouths unite That way there is the ability to post things like this and no need to censor. Btw that poop was funny Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
plunk10 Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 On-topic: The real question is can a breathalyzer be fooled? My guess is that the gentleman was hoping that police would be so profoudly disgusted that they wouldn't test him at all. One would hope that the reporter would follow up with the man once he sobers up, to find his rationale. And for the record, ick. Kevin Nope. Even the penny trick won't work. Here's a pretty big write up on many attempts at fooling the contraption. http://www.snopes.com/autos/law/breath.asp So I understand from lawyers, the best way out, when you know you are completely wasted, is to refuse the breath test (if your state gives you that option). Every state is different, and of course, YMMV, but this lawyer told a friend that refusing the breath test makes things much more difficult for the prosecution in court. In my state, refusing the breath test automatically takes your license away for 3 or 4 months though, so either way, you're screwed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
godwhomismike Posted April 1, 2005 Share Posted April 1, 2005 On-topic: The real question is can a breathalyzer be fooled? Kevin As far as I know - it can't be fooled. - Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDII Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 Bwahahahahahahahaha Need forum help? Private Message legGTLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
melayout Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 You're a I keed I keeed Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BDII Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 what? Need forum help? Private Message legGTLT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aczwild Posted February 1, 2006 Share Posted February 1, 2006 dude, christ how many dead threads are you gonna bring up? JDM'd All to hell Thanks Jimmy @ Hkc-Speed.com! RIP Coxx & Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.