I have to agree with the web filter being at fault. I am ambivalent to whether or not the word is innocuous or whether it can be misconstrued or even if, to some people, it is truly offensive.
What bothers me more is the idea that the rest of the World all needs to update their documentation (and way of communicating) because some incompetent web-filter design can't distinguish. What if tomorrow it starts regarding other innocuous words? Should we set the precedent of allowing it to dictate to us what can and cannot be said? Fix the web-filter. Plus, in my language, that "org" abbreviation is very offensive. So is "func". I doubt that should matter to the rest of the World though. The irony is - these filters are so English-centric, I bet I can type a long list of words (and their colloquial abbreviations) in my native language, Dutch, French or Chinese that are thoroughly offensive and no filter would be any wiser. I have compassion for people wanting their young to learn from the www but still be sheltered from the dangerous language one might encounter there. You can't have it both ways though, if you will use a web filter, the onus is on you to put pressure on the designers of that filter to do it better - not to ask the rest of the World to play nice with the filter. (If the latter worked, we wouldn't need any filters to start with). That said, I also agree with Simon's second part about the WITH documentation would benefit from addition of more cte examples without recursion. Cheers, Ryan On 2015-07-21 05:46 PM, Paul Sanderson wrote: > The problem seems to be with the web filter and not the abbreviation > cnt. I would suggest that the onus should be on them to adjust their... > On 21 July 2015 at 16:34, Jim Callahan <jim.callahan.orlando at gmail.com> > wrote: >> I Simon's point about idiotic web filters is valid.
