Change to the swear filter

Slutmonkey57b

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.

Overheal

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

Steve

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

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

AckwelFoley

Its a swear filter not a grammer filter

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.

RoundyMooney

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

Even one missing comma.

Mr Quiet

Chicken Little.

Sky. Stuff.

Dudess

More specifically, "should of went".

Karl Hungus

snyper wrote: »

Its a swear filter not a grammer filter

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

Overheal

eVeNtInE

This post has been deleted.

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".

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)

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?

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.

stovelid

Lord lantern jaysus, not another fucking grammar thread.

Karl Hungus

stovelid wrote: »

Lord lantern jaysus, not another fucking grammar thread.

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!

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*

stovelid

I just knew those pictures were too good to last.

Dudess

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

Steve

Dudess wrote: »

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

:eek:
Dude!

K-9

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

Sherifu

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

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: