Is the AB censor an idiot?

[chakka35]

On another site I tried to refer to the proper zoological name for mankind, which we all know is moho sapiens. But when I spelt that first word correctly (instead of using the anagram above) it was censored and replaced with asterisks.
This means that one cannot refer on AB to a scientific term which is used in thousands of textbooks on biology, evolution, zoology and in dozens of other disciplines. What is particularly daft is that the first four letters of the word 'homosexuality' is not the Latin for 'man' (as in that zoological term) but a Greek prefix meaning 'the same', the whole word meaning 'of the same sex' .

Whether the AB censor is moho or femina, he or she is certainly not sapiens.

[chakka35]

homo sapiens has always been two words (and sapiens has an 's' on the end). And who's hot and bothered? I merely point out an absurdity which is nuisance when you are trying to have a rational discussion about species.

I'm pleased that they have stopped censoring references to a male bird (which they used to do). Perhaps they'll now learn some sense with our zoological description.

And, Ed, what do I need to ask you? I repeat that I am pointing out an absurdity, not seeking information.

[chakka35]

Hooray! Well done, Ed! That's that sorted. What shall I tackle next...?

[B00]

the problem is Chakka, we (ok, most of us) complained long and hard when users, in the past, littered their posts with swear words. So we were given the filter system. Now we're still not happy that specific words will not pass this system. In all fairness I can see why the word "h0mo" would be included in its target list.

Seems to me we can't have it both ways im afraid.

[chakka35]

Come off it BOO, are you seriously suggesting that it is impossible to distinguish when the the word you mention is being used offensively and when seriously and scientifically?
How many people object to the thousands of textbooks and articles about human evolution on the grounds that they are offended by this Latin term?

Anyway, it seems OK now.

[B00]

Errr yes, that's seriously what im suggesting chakka!

We're talking about a programme here, not a person who sites there zapping bad words.

Now im not techy but i imagine that the programme gets "bad" words inputted into it, one of those being homo- i imagine it's pretty difficult to tell it to distinguish when that word is used as a profanity or insult or when it's part of another longer word, in this case homosapiens.

[mibn2cweus]

Blame it all on homo erectus. If it wasn't for them we wouldn't be here now discussing this problem.

[Quizmonster]

You're lucky; there was a time here on AnswerBank when you couldn't even write wristwatch because of an enclosed 4-letter sequence. (I THINK they sorted that out...let's see.)

[chakka35]

Even easier with a program, BOO. Just tell it that when that particular word is followed by recognised words like 'sapiens', the word should be allowed. Elementary programming.

The term comprises two words, BOO, not one. Strictly speaking, one of the words should be in italics.

[AB Editor]

Wristwatch should probably be a replacement word for something. I will go have a think about that.

Why not go vote on this in the meantime: http://www.theanswerb...k/Question871503.html

All the best

Spare Ed

[chakka35]

I'm very happy now, Ed, thank you. I'll leave the topic now.

[rojash]

"Since when has homosapien been two words? "
I think if you check the various dictionaries you'll find that it's 50/50 as to whether it's one word or two.

[Quizmonster]

Neither The Oxford English Dictionary nor Chambers - the two major British dictionaries - offers a single-word version.

[society]

what are you Homo sapiens idaltu and Homo rhodesiensis carrying on about? :-)