A case of fluffykittens?

Rob

I ƒu¢k¡ng hate bowdlerizing scripts. They can never please everyone and inevitably fail in unforeseen ways, as Dorothy has shown. Better to not have them at all.

There we go. I'm quite proud of this as my first ƒu¢k¡ng post in this new strip-mall of a forum.

All kidding aside, DK, my using alternate fcuking characters has no more to do with being "naughty" than your starting this thread does.

Near as I've been able to tell over the past decade is that using "bad" words here just hasn't been so much of a problem that it now suddenly requires that every post be sieved through this resource-sucking filter. Community pressure from the regulars has done well enough when brought to bear on the most egregious offenders. For those who can't manage to write a single sentence without using "bad" words, perhaps the "report abuse" function can be used to effectively curtail their habit.

I used my previous post simply to demonstrate that if someone desires to use "bad" language, there are myriad ways to end-run the filter.

Just who is being protected here? Show me ONE chart or graph that clearly shows that there is a significant stratum of children under 18 years old who visit these forums. Show me ONE report that has gathered together 10 years worth of hard data from real users of any stripe wherein they actively and continuously complained about the amount of "bad" language being used on these forums.

I'm willing to bet no such data exists. I'm willing to bet that the decision to include a "bad" words filter was made on a whim, to include it just because it was made available in this new script.

I hereby BEG for a frank discussion with the folks who have deemed the "swear filter" a necessary part of the Forum change.

They can bring IT people, designers, web jockeys, coders, lawyers, managers, clergy, sociologists, anyone they want to the discussion, and I can strongly and deftly refute any argument for its inclusion they bring to the table.

It's unabashedly ridiculous, and I find it insulting and patronizing.

When a perfectly utilitarian and acceptable word like b-u-c-k-e-t gets rejected then you know we have reached an Orwellian limit.

However, after consulting a 1913 defintion I am no longer sure what the word means:

Bucket \Buck"et\, v. t. [imp. & p. p. {Bucketed}; p. pr. & vb.
   n. {Bucketing}.]
   1. To draw or lift in, or as if in, buckets; as, to bucket
      water.
      [Webster 1913 Suppl.]

   2. To pour over from a bucket; to drench.
      [Webster 1913 Suppl.]

   3. To ride (a horse) hard or mercilessly.
      [Webster 1913 Suppl.]

   4. (Rowing) To make, or cause to make (the recovery), with a
      certain hurried or unskillful forward swing of the body.
      [Eng.]
      [Webster 1913 Suppl.]

Maybe its Baroque