userr2684291

The word censor in this context, and especially when talking about politics, is used with bad connotations, for your information.

I personally wouldn't, which is why I asked whether you just wanted to say edit (because it seemed you were trying to imply more than is actually there, i.e. the usual way the word censor is used).

Or how it's relevant at all to the matter here. Is it relevant in any way? Are you just unsure whether you can use that word in this situation? Well, here you go, you can use it; see the substituted dictionary definitions above.

What I wanted to say is it's meaningless to discuss this definition, because it's not even clear what you're trying to say with it.

And the reason you haven't responded to anything else is, I assume, that you agree with it. So I'm glad we've put this matter to bed, and you can just do your job, maybe. Or maybe you can pretend you're right about something.

Normally censorship implies something else, but now we're gonna do what you want me to do. Because you're like "do you really want me to cEnSOr stuff?", and then you're like "but censoring isn't bad". Well OK then, here you go.

@EddieKal Damn straight, but not because of your misconceptions and following some dictionary definitions. If you really want to consider it censorship, you can, but in this way: "the institution, system, or practice of censoring", censor: "to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable", objectionable: "undesirable". So, the practice of examining in order to delete something undesirable. Yup, I'm perfectly content with this definition.

Or, you could try and actually argue your non-point about ... the definition of censorship (???) or whatever ship you think this is.

I wonder how many euphemisms I know for fucking.

You're giving them the benefit of the doubt, that's what you're doing here, in case the user was simply "misinformed" and is "innocently quoting some very valid ... whatever". This is how you waste time on fact checking and being all "both sides" about it instead of just nipping it in the bud before it buds into that sunflower you call president.

You should delete this instead of trying to follow some overly generalized rules that can't actually be applied. Yes, it's bad to edit comments because people complain about that, but this is a valid exception.

Because it's context, right?

Because since you're now accepting this as some kinda "innocent, helpful, context-providing comment", I should also provide more context...

In the case that it was made to actually clarify something, it's still biased and therefore unacceptable. And in that case I should also be free to comment about this, quoting some idiotic tweet or newspaper article that deals with that matter.

It's providing a god damn excuse for something ... and no one asked about that. It's clearly politically motivated.

@EddieKal I don't know if it's because I'm not a native speaker, but I see that comment as providing a biased story on something that wasn't asked about. The asker asked about the construction, rather than the meaning of some expression; it's very "helpful" of FF to provide some context – given FF's role of Trump adviser and counsel – namely that all that is Trump's master plan, and that these critics are falsely accusing him of basically tweeting all day.

The comment is also factually inaccurate, if you want that... the subject's present alright, it's just taken on the role of "patient", but I'm actually willing to disregard that, haha.

They asked about it, and are shifting the question of whether that irrelevant comment should be removed based on my exact wording.

I used the word speculative for a reason.

But I just told them about the specifics?

Meh, it's fine.

And you can remove it entirely because the answer already contains that information...

Because it talks about Trump supporters? Because it talks about his intentions? How the hell does he know that?

@EddieKal Hm, I see what you mean. It's still irrelevant as regards the actual question...

I bet most people don't care, which is why they don't flag anything anyway.

@EddieKal I often upvote FF's comments, regardless of how "disturbing" they are... I don't understand what the C. thing is about – is this really censoring? Do you mean just "edit"? I told you why, so there's your answer. If I didn't think it worthy of an edit, I wouldn't've flagged it.

In the previous sentence he assumes the asker knows what the term in question means, so his "wind up" isn't used to explain its meaning, but to merely color it a certain way.

I only flagged the first one, because for the first time I thought you could easily remove such opinion with nothing of value being lost. FF tends to thread his political nonsense through his comment-answers all the time, and I never bother flagging these because I feel it's "too much trouble" rephrasing what someone said. I'm not sure why you've decided to not understand the actual question that was asked; it wasn't about the object of the sentence, or the meaning.

@EddieKal The answer alone has answered the asker's question, and their question wasn't about the meaning of the term.

He's literally a biased source. And there's absolutely no need for that kinda stuff when it comes to learning English, like the heck...

@EddieKal Y'know, if he stated it as a simple fact: Trump tweets a lot – I wouldn't say a word. Whether his supporters use Twitter or know how to use a computer at all (see, that's already coloring it nicely) is really irrelevant, and so are FFs speculations when it comes to what Trump's great mastermind plan is.

It's literally enclosed in parentheses in a comment, lol.

Yep.

It never seemed necessary.

Yep.

Esp. when that thing isn't even relevant.

There's never a need to qualify just about everything with a personal opinion/speculation.

This answer has been accepted, too.

Did you notice there's an actual answer to that question under which he posted a comment? The answer doesn't contain any of that BS he spews.

My American friend recently said "I'm now having to...", and I don't think I'd ever heard this usage, so I looked it up and found this, where the commenter says "You're right that it sounds like the obligation is temporary, but it can't be one-time.", but it was exactly that in the context in which I observed this usage, but this might have something to do with the choice of verb.

I just had to read it again a couple seconds ago on a different answer, where it was completely unnecessary to mention any of that stuff.

Just like he can intersperse his idiotic opinions with advice on English, you can remove it.

@EddieKal Did you reject my flag requesting you guys edit that Trump BS FF keeps excreting whenever there's political stuff mentioned in a question? Kinda irks me, because I have to read someone's political nonsense here, and I don't want to read it unless it's the mention use of the use–mention distinction, haha.

Email spam and regular internet spam (forums and other "boards") could be used here... yeah. Whoops.

Hm, although I am assuming here that there isn't that much spam, and that we don't have the data... I might be wrong, lol. I guess I see everything through SDP-colored glasses.

I'm not really interested in the matter, though, lol. I was kinda forced to, and just did it, I guess.

I, um, informally collaborated on some research regarding this.

In software defect prediction there's been some progress recently in this regard with some hybrid models involving neural nets. On average, you can get up to 85% of whatever these more accurate metrics represent.

I believe the AUC and F-measure performance metrics are what's used with classifiers for imbalanced datasets.

@M.A.R. Accuracy is a bad metric here, if you're talking about the ML formula.