Garacesh

You'd hope so.. But it's often who shouts the loudest that gets listened to, not who makes the most sense. And the professionally offended are reeeeaaally good at making lots of noise. But again, as I said, I'll give her the same chance I gave Eccleston, Tennant, Smith and Capaldi. And I genuinely do hope that she's been chosen for the right reasons. I'd much rather be pleasantly surprised than smugly get to say 'I told you so!'. I don't want to see 'a woman Doctor', I just want more 'great Doctors' and if she can do that, she gets a thumbs up from me. And it ain't anything to do with sex to say that 'cause I said pretty much the same thing about Smith when he popped up That's not exactly fair @DalekSec.. Most of the discussion has been more around why she is a woman, rather than that she is a woman.

Please no. Ed Sheeran is everywhere enough as it is. I don't want him being the Doctor The wage-gap statistics are the aggregated averages across all careers, all working hours and all breaks from the workforce. It is the average all women make against the average all men make. Paying a man and a woman a different salary/wage for the same work is illegal (gratis, Second-wave Feminism). Companies that do it get in a lot of trouble. Now that companies are starting to actually pay men better for paternity leave, we're seeing a lot less women leave the workforce when they have a child and more men becoming full-time parents. Up until relatively recently this just wasn't possible because men got nowhere near as gracious paternity benefits as women did. It would be interesting to see Whittaker's salary vs Capaldi's though

The first wave of feminism fought for (and subsequently gained) the right for women to vote. Commonly referred to as 'The Suffragette Movement' The second wave of feminism fought for equality in the workforce, and to remove the legally-allowed sex discrimination. The third wave of feminism gets upset when women don't have armpit hair and still believe in the wage-gap myth.

This is precisely why I don't want third-wave feminism hamstringing my TV programs. I'm all for gender equality, but third-wave feminism is just as draconian as the supposed patriarchy. But like I've said, I'll give her a chance, as I've done with all the other Doctors. I've been pleasantly surprised each time, the directors seem to know what they're doing, so I'm not going to just assume this is the BBC pandering.

Personally I don't think I'll play first person. If I wanted to play an FPS, I'd be playing Overwatch, or Battlefield, or COD, or any other one of the millions of FPS games out there. The third-person view is part of the charm, the same way it was for All Points Bulletin, or The Division.

Wow, you're serious? That was a thing? Sometimes people do do things that deserve the negative reactions. Every movement going right now seems to have its members that will make mountains out of molehills. Did anybody stop to think that maybe Gal Gadot doesn't have armpit hair because she doesn't like having armpit hair? >.<

I think that's definitely going to be what happens this time. We saw him begin to regenerate and angrily forced it back.. It's going to be an explosive one!

We know that Time Lords/Ladies can change sex when they regenerate, that's fixed in both old and new canon. I think if they want to properly play it straight, they need to mention it every now and again, but not make a big fuss out of it. Which unfortunately is probably easier said than done. "Right.. OK. Appearance. Arms.. Legs.. Head. Got those. Ooh, longer hair? Blonde? Still not ginger!? Hearts. Two still. Good." The Doctor keels over in pain. "Oh sure, because both of them beating would just be too easy, wouldn't it?" The Doctor punches herself in the chest to kickstart her second heart. "Those weren't there before.. Wait.." The Doctor pauses for thought. "Well that's a new one!" Roll opening credits. Or if she's somewhere she shouldn't be.. Say, inside a military base.. "Hey, you! You can't be here. I'm going to need to see some ID." The Doctor ignores the officer "Excuse me? Miss? I said you can't be here." The Doctor continues to examine the alien object in her hands, the officer approaches her and taps her on the shoulder. "Listen, you're going to ha-" "Oh, I'm sorry, were you talking to me? I'm so used to being a man, you see. Also, I'm afraid I can be here, you see, I'm on special orders from $Somebody." The Doctor pulls out her Psychic Paper and shows it to the bemused officer.

Simple enough fix.. PUBG later?

+1 If the female role is rooted in feminism-pandering, then I can see the doctor not being allowed to be written as irrational, vulnerable, or broken (which we've had in spades from the male leads) just in case it's seen as portraying women as weak. If the female role isn't pandering, then I hope we get some of those scenes, because those have the potential to be defining, outstanding moments for each Doctor, and I love them.

Damn, that would've been nice.. Would also help pin down any false-positives because people wouldn't have to wait to find out it didn't work.. Shame. Thanks for checking I wonder why they still have the custom rejection message field if it doesn't do anything anymore.. Now for some reason, kids can't email the test mailing list.. even though (just for testing) the mailing list rule is set to append [DISTRIBUTIONLIST] rather than reject

That doesn't appear to happen here.. For example, I send a test email containing the f-bomb, the rule is set to "Reject message // Customize rejection notice: Please keep your emails free of profanity." and when I click Send, I get 'Your message has been sent. View message' and it appears in the sentbox, it just doesn't arrive in the recipients inbox.

If you look a the top of your screen, there's a compass, and that compass has numbers on it It's much more accurate to use compass numbers to convey an enemy position.

I admit I have a few reservations.. I hope she's been cast the part because she's the best candidate and can play the role well - I wouldn't know, I don't think I've seen her in anything before - rather than the BBC just trying to virtue-signal how progressive they are. I'll still watch it and give her a chance, I've done it with all of the Doctor's so far and I've been pleasantly surprised so far. It's her "as a feminist" quote that bothers me though, I really don't want a third-wave feminist agenda pushing the direction of the show (there's a huge debate to be had about third-wave feminism vs feminism of the past vs egalitarianism, but this thread ain't the right place for that.)

So I took out about 60% of the banned words, tested it, email wasn't flagged. Added the banned words in 2 or 3 at a time, giving it a few minute and testing each time. All fine. I've now added all of the banned words back in, just as they were previously. Normal emails are still not being flagged. WWWUUUUUUTTTTT?!?!? Normal emails ("This is a normal email. It is boring. This email exists solely for the purpose of checking the profanity filter.") aren't getting [FLAGGED] added to the subject... Profanity (i.e b@st4rd) is getting [FLAGGED] added. So despite being no different, it's doing what it should do now. >.< Almost hometime. Almost hometime.

My 'reject emails to distribution lists' filter works (Any envelope recipient // (test@domain|pupils@domain|classroom_teachers@domain|etc|etc|etc) (Well partially.. Even though I've set a rejection message, there's no rejection message...)

Tearing my hair out over here. Literally the same email! It's one email with two addresses. What the hell is going on?! Each entry in the list (i.e. (?i)n[i!1][g9]((\W|$)|[g9][a@4]|[s\$5z]|[g9][e3]r)) is set to 'Body', and there was literally no email body. Blank. Nada. It just flags everything.. Cannot figure this out at all.

Hmmm.. It appears enabling either my DCPO-redirect or the profanity filter stops any and all mail being sent.. Wut.. >.<

No, not unless I want to re-apply the rule again every year when new kids get introduced Besides, the regex method takes longer, but is considerably more malleable. It'll be worth it in the long run.

Yeah, I did have a traditional list set up, but I want two different rules and G Suite doesn't seem to accommodate that. Any time I add two different 'Objectional Content' lists, they inherit each others words, and we want one list to just be binned (standard swears) and the other list to be redirected to the DCPO (things of a potential sexual nature)

You're welcome Wow, setting this profanity filter is going to take a bit of work... ((?i)(\W|^)(s|$)h(i|!|1)(t|7)(\W|$)) alone is just for the S-word.

I assume so, provided your pupils are separated by their own OU's in G Suite. Example: Your new year 7's will be [email protected] and your older kids follow the same naming convention: Advanced Content Match / Any Envelope Recipient / Contains Text / ([email protected]|[email protected]|[email protected]|[email protected]) should stop them emailing any address containing any of those strings (which are next academic year 8, 9, 10 and 11's) You'll have to manually do this for each one of your year groups every year, though. And realistically you'll want to do four years either side, so you don't have to update every year. So your 2017 intake would have the rule ([email protected]|[email protected]|[email protected]|[email protected]|[email protected]|[email protected]|[email protected]|[email protected])

How did I miss this? Now I feel like a buffon. Thanks a tonne! Edit: To add to this for anybody finding this later, you can put multiple emails in the same rule, just stick it in brackets and use pipe-dividers to define OR eg: ([email protected]|[email protected]|[email protected])

Could you explain how? I don't see an option for that My options there are: Attachment compliance (Modify email based on attachment data. We have it set to strip certain attachments.) Restrict delivery (Whitelisted domains. We have our google domain whitelisted. This setting doesn't appear to have a 'blacklist sending to specific addresses' option.) Objectionable content (Your basic string-match) Append footer (Unused) Content compliance (More extensive regex string-match) Secure transport (TLS) compliance (Unused)

Each of our Active Directory departmental groups are synced to G Suite via GCDS at the moment, and each group gets its own email address. (i.e. 'Subject-Test' AD group becomes Test@domain) Membership is controlled by AD/GCDS but permissions have been set on the groups manually. Everything is set to 'All members of the group' or higher (manager/owner) but my test pupil can still go into GMail and email Test@domain and the email goes through successfully. I want to block this, but I can't find a way of doing it. I've tried trawling through the Group permissions. Can't find anything about emailing the group. I've tried GMail settings: There's only an option to whitelist domains, no way to blacklist sending to an address. I've tried adding Pupils to the Test group and then using Group's 'Ban' function. They can still email the distribution list. Anybody have a solution?