Naughty words "over there"

[The Hornet]

Much mention has recently be made concerning words you can and can't use on "the other side". This is something I tried to learn more about when I was a forum moderator there.

GSP volunteers Moderators/reviewers and Lackeys have a private discussion forum and I asked there what words were and were not allowed. Apparently there is a list which the forum software automatically edits. This was set up in the early days of the forum and I don't think it has been updated recently. Despite repeated requests, this list was not made public even to forum moderators who had responsibility for the various forums. I never did understand this reluctance to share with us what was and was not acceptable.

I also asked if forums devoted to other countries/languages had their own lists. It would appear not, so you are free to write what you like in French, German, Japanese or whatever and unless a local moderator (or roving Global mod with language skills) spots it you are OK. Our misfortune is to have a language with a number of words in common usage in English which nevertheless are on the "black" list which is set up in the American language.

[Happy Humphrey]

Thanks for clarifying that. I seem to have learnt a lot about geocaching.com reviewing and moderating in the last few weeks, for some reason!

There are a few examples of the reverse situation: words which are commonly used in the USA but are rather stronger in the UK. Read this cache description, for instance

https://www.geocaching.com/seek/cach...8-244376420498

...I just had to go and see what a "Fanny Bridge" was like! Actually that turned out to be my one and only US "LPC".

[Bill D (wwh)]

Most forum software comes with a default list of "bad words", which are usually based on American English. I've spent a while working on the bad words list for these forums to try to exclude words which really aren't "family friendly" in a British English forum, but to allow words which most British English speakers would be ok with.

For (hopefully) obvious reasons I'm not going to post the list here...!

Right, I'm off to look up "Fanny Bridge"...

[sTeamTraen]

I think the clue to understanding this is not to assume that the list of individual words which are auto-corrected/auto-censored is complete, exhaustive, or exclusively concerned with keeping things "clean". It's "just there". Nobody spends very much time tweaking it. The lackeys do not spend hours discussing marginally smutty language.

For example, six of George Carlin's famous "Seven words you can't say on television" are auto-censored. I don't understand why the seventh (a common four-letter synonym for weak beer, I believe) isn't, but I'm pretty sure that there wasn't a vote on it among the moderators. You can probably say "I was <weak beer>ed [off] to find my cache had been stolen" - in fact, I've seen it - but you can't tell someone to "<weak beer> off". You can, of course, avoid any problems by counting slowly to 3 and finding a different word, in the first case, or offering your adversary a pat on the back in the second. I swear way too much when I'm speaking, but when typing I try to take a few seconds to think about what I'm saying.

However, the corollary to the auto-correct list not being the be-all and end-all, is that if you use very obvious misspellings of words that would be clearly unacceptable, you can't look all innocent and say "but I was just discussing fashion chains and medieval monarchy". In the specific case where people were having a go at Eartha - who, as the name suggests, is of the female persuasion - don't forget that the well-dressed misspelt king in question is a common insult for a woman in US English.

Similar considerations cover non-English languages, and words where the "severity" level varies from one English variant to another. Currently, the IPB software doesn't allow you to have a different auto-correct list per forum, so it seems reasonable to have a US-centric list and allow a little flexibility (either way) at a national level. That seems to be what Mandarin is putting in place, judging by recent posts.

The key to having everything calm down will be having a single moderator on board applying her rules consistently. Much of the lack of consistency over the last few weeks has been because, for assorted logistical reasons, there's been a selection of moderators in the UK forum, each with (inevitably) slightly different standards. Of course, until we've perfected cloning of waterfowl, you'll need to tread carefully in other, US-moderated forums...

[Simply Paul]

However, the corollary to the auto-correct list not being the be-all and end-all, is that if you use very obvious misspellings of words that would be clearly unacceptable, you can't look all innocent and say "but I was just discussing fashion chains and medieval monarchy". In the specific case where people were having a go at Eartha - who, as the name suggests, is of the female persuasion - don't forget that the well-dressed misspelt king in question is a common insult for a woman in US English.

You've made it sound like I was calling Eartha a well dressed (have you shopped in FCUK? I can't let well dressed pass without comment!) misspelt king (Cnut isn't a misspelling. It was his name. Google it) when I didn't- That would have been unforgivably rude of me. Nor have I said I was 'discussing fashion chains and medievel monarchy' - That would be dumb at best. You've mistaken obvious misspelling of words which would clearly be unacceptable for words (or rather names) which you can see in books in school libraries and on many High Streets. They weren't misspelt; I really did mean to type [edited by admin]. The point I was actually making was some words might be rude if you move the letters around but damn is not an offensive word to anyone who doesn't actually want to be offended, and thus shouldn't be edited by the forum. If I'd have realised the message was going to be misunderstood I'd have made it clearer (Oh yes, I know lots of *really* rude words- and very innocent anagrams of them) in the first place. Anyway, I've bored myself with this whole carp business. We should be focussing on Peter. He deserves better treatment from the company he gave years of unpaid work to. They've seriously taken the sips. I bet he's kicking himself now...

Just a quick reminder why I was banned, and my reply to Greg (Interesting to note he also edited out dam.n from my original post; I'd not noticed before. I assumed his focus was on 'other words' but since I got a further warning for using The D Word (!) perhaps I'd missunderstood the problem...:

"In a message dated 09/08/2008 04:14:21 GMT Standard Time, noreply@geocaching.com writes:
"Yes, you can't say dam.n here (a word that was fine in 1939's Gone With The Wind) but you can say Utter [edited by admin] Odd, isn't it?"

[You failed to include the rest of my post in your email:
Yes, you can't say [dadgum] here (a word that was fine in 1939's Gone With The Wind) but you can say Utter [um, no you cannot]. Odd, itsn't it?

*To shop at French Connection UK
**The modern spelling of the King who demanded the tide halt to prove he couldn't do everything.

Sorry about this post. I'm feeling a little Civil Disobediency today...

This post has been edited by mtn-man: Today, 03:19 AM]
https://forums.groundspeak.com/GC/in...post&p=3590593

No, you cannot say that. The forum guidelines are pretty clear regarding profanity. The blatant, intentional violation of the guidelines forces a three day time out from the forums. Further violations of the guidelines could cause longer disabled posting or eventual removal from posting in the forums. Please do not intentionally violate the guidelines in this nature in the future.

I draw your attention to: FCUK: FRENCH CONNECTION - Womenswear and Menswear - Style and Fashion and Canute (also known as Cnut) the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. These words aren't profanities, they're anagrams of profanities. Many of the words used in English and on the forums are anagrams of profanities- it doesn't make them profane. Some place names, for example Scunthorpe, actually have the letters in the right order, yet they're not profane either. Please reconsider your three day ban or I shall be forced to take further action.

Paul Smith (an anagram of A Sh*t Lump. The world's full of them if you look...)"

[amberel]

Frankly I'm amazed that you got away with only a 3 day ban after being so persistently provocative.

If you genuinely think you weren't being persistently provocative, then you are indeed extraordinarily naive and insensitive.

Rgds, Andy

[minstrelcat]

damn is not an offensive word to anyone who doesn't actually want to be offended

No word is offensive to anyone who doesn't want to be offended. People are often quick to take offense where none was intended.

I'm sure some people could take offense at *anything* if they tried hard enough.

[dodgydaved]

No word is offensive to anyone who doesn't want to be offended. People are often quick to take offense where none was intended.

I'm sure some people could take offense at *anything* if they tried hard enough.

I would never want to condone "bad" language - indeed one of the most difficult parts of my job has been to try to moderate the level of obscenity whilst dealing with disturbed young people in extreme emotional stress.

However - much as many find it offensive (and possibly quite correctly too) - have you listened to the ordinary everyday language used by members of both sexes, often under a certain age - but not always, in the High Street and Supermarket?

Often use of "bad" language is a habituation and has no particularly offensive context.

Many years ago (1968 to be precise), between college and employment I worked on the foundary bed in the Iron Works where my dad had been Managing Director and was still a regular visitor.

One day I was doing a particularly difficult piece of moulding and a lip of sand broke.

"Bloody Hell!!" quoth I.

The foreman turned on me immediately,

"Here Dave, does tha' fayther know tha' f****** swears?!!"

It was merely an observation, not an obscenity.

Again it was, in it's own little way, a micro cultural difference - as we have in the current debate perhaps.

[Dave from Glanton]

Again it was, in it's own little way, a micro cultural difference - as we have in the current debate perhaps.

I'm sure there are those who find the word "micro" objectionable

[Tiger-Eyes]

As a mum with chidren who are home from school at the moment, I am finding it increasingly difficult to look at some forums posts whilst my children are about. My 5 yr old is learning to read and often looks over my shoulder to try and learn new words.
I have a choice
1 -stop coming into the forums until the children are back at school (I rarely get time to come on the PC in the evenings) and once they return to school I will hopefully be working during the day or
2 - Hope that posters are sensible enough to realise it's not only adults that can read and stop posting profanities or anagrams of such.

Interestingly enough there was an email I receive a while back which was written entirely in anagrams with only the first and last letter of the words in the correct place and most people could read it easily.

I am personaly finding some of the words and anagrams used offensive without them being directed at anybody

These are my personal views as a forum user

[Birdman-of-liskatraz]

I have concerns about over here too - it's OK having a "hardly any moderation policy" but what if say a Non cacher, or a possible sponsor, was to wander into this forum.. and saw a thread entitled...

Are caches at risk from attack

Does that not look racist? or at best unprofessional... I'm sure it's all meant to be a bit of fun and taken in good humour but when it's displayed for all the world to see - it worries me.

Just saying..

[Tiger-Eyes]

I have concerns about over here too - it's OK having a "hardly any moderation policy" but what if say a Non cacher, or a possible sponsor, was to wander into this forum.. and saw a thread entitled...

Are caches at risk from a **** attack

Does that not look racist? or at best unprofessional... I'm sure it's all meant to be a bit of fun and taken in good humour but when it's displayed for all the world to see - it worries me.

Just saying..

Whilst I appreciate that maybe we should have edited that thread when it first appeared we have never been a forum that examines every thread or post, combined with the fact that some members of admin were on Holiday when it appeared this one has obviously slipped through the net and I will go and edit it now.

[The Hornet]

As a mum with chidren who are home from school at the moment, I am finding it increasingly difficult to look at some forums posts whilst my children are about. My 5 yr old is learning to read and often looks over my shoulder to try and learn new words.
I have a choice
1 -stop coming into the forums until the children are back at school (I rarely get time to come on the PC in the evenings) and once they return to school I will hopefully be working during the day or
2 - Hope that posters are sensible enough to realise it's not only adults that can read and stop posting profanities or anagrams of such.

Interestingly enough there was an email I receive a while back which was written entirely in anagrams with only the first and last letter of the words in the correct place and most people could read it easily.

I am personaly finding some of the words and anagrams used offensive without them being directed at anybody

These are my personal views as a forum user

Rather than type it out again I think this post of mine covers my feelings on this matter.

[Simply Paul]

Frankly I'm amazed that you got away with only a 3 day ban after being so persistently provocative.

If you genuinely think you weren't being persistently provocative, then you are indeed extraordinarily naive and insensitive.

Rgds, Andy

Persistent? This was a first offence, and unless you include the damn I was cautioned for, the only offence. Hardly persistent offending. Provocative on the other hand? Yes, I think so, a bit. These names (which I see have been edited out on this forum- I'm going to take that as a hint that they're not acceptable names here either and won't use them again. See how that's an effective solution for everyone? No need for a formal warning or ban) are perhaps contentious. They're not profane though, which is the reason I was given for the ban from 'the other place'.

Persistently provocative? No. Therefor I must indeed be an extraordinarily naive and insensitive person. You'd think I'd get in more trouble than I do. Over 4000 posts 'elsewhere' and only one ban and a warning; I really must work harder at my naivety and insensitivity

[Happy Humphrey]

An example should help put this whole thing in perspective.

I'm a regular visitor to the UK Climbing forum (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/). This is one of the biggest and most popular UK forums on the internet.

Even without registering, you should still get a fair impression of the style of posts considered acceptable there. You don't have to know what they're talking about.

There are plenty of forum guidelines too (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/guidelines.html)

But even so, most of the threads are not "family friendly" in the way geocaching.com likes it to be, due to the robust and opinionated style that many participants are used to.

Try this one, for instance (the first I picked at random);
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=315894
...along with rude words and off-topic posts.
There is a "chat room forum", where things get much more fruity, but that's off-limits unless you've spent two minutes registering.

The point is that this is a totally acceptable forum (to the UK climbing community, which is probably bigger than the world geocaching community), yet if GC.COM were moderating it would be closed down completely within hours...

I think that any attempt to make an internet forum totally "world wide family friendly" is bound to run onto the rocks fairly regularly, and that we're suffering from over-ambitious expectations in this area.

That's why my view is that the best place for UK-related geocaching discussions is on a completely UK site with UK moderators, with whom we can discuss appropriate guidelines to suit UK sensibilities and culture*. Remember that the Groundspeak "UK Forum" is simply a US Geocaching Forum section, dedicated to talk about UK caching. Not a dedicated UK forum.

(*Edit: "UK sensibilities and culture" is not really what I mean, as I'm aware that it's not just UK people that are able to deal with a little more "robust" debate, but I can't find a phrase that sums it up very well).

[Mrs Blorenge]

I'm a regular visitor to the UK Climbing forum (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/). This is one of the biggest and most popular UK forums on the internet.

Even without registering, you should still get a fair impression of the style of posts considered acceptable there. You don't have to know what they're talking about.

Great thread. I'm a big pangolin fan, too

The point is that this is a totally acceptable forum (to the UK climbing community, which is probably bigger than the world geocaching community), yet if GC.COM were moderating it would be closed down completely within hours...

I'd guess so... it would be fairly difficult to bring an ant-eater/pangolin thread around to geocaching... and as for that reference to "a 2' long tongue"...

I think that any attempt to make an internet forum totally "world wide family friendly" is bound to run onto the rocks fairly regularly, and that we're suffering from over-ambitious expectations in this area.

Maybe.

Remember that the Groundspeak "UK Forum" is simply a US Geocaching Forum section, dedicated to talk about UK caching. Not a dedicated UK forum.

(MrsB's emphasis)

Precisely. That's the way I see it.

[The Hornet]

A
I think that any attempt to make an internet forum totally "world wide family friendly" is bound to run onto the rocks fairly regularly,

Absolutely, this will inevitably lead to a "lowest common denominator" approach and you end up with something so bland as to be worthless.

[uktim]

An example should help put this whole thing in perspective.

I'm a regular visitor to the UK Climbing forum (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/). This is one of the biggest and most popular UK forums on the internet.

Even without registering, you should still get a fair impression of the style of posts considered acceptable there. You don't have to know what they're talking about.

There are plenty of forum guidelines too (http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/info/guidelines.html)

But even so, most of the threads are not "family friendly" in the way geocaching.com likes it to be, due to the robust and opinionated style that many participants are used to.

Try this one, for instance (the first I picked at random);
http://www.ukclimbing.com/forums/t.php?t=315894
...along with rude words and off-topic posts.
There is a "chat room forum", where things get much more fruity, but that's off-limits unless you've spent two minutes registering.

The point is that this is a totally acceptable forum (to the UK climbing community, which is probably bigger than the world geocaching community), yet if GC.COM were moderating it would be closed down completely within hours...

I think that any attempt to make an internet forum totally "world wide family friendly" is bound to run onto the rocks fairly regularly, and that we're suffering from over-ambitious expectations in this area.

That's why my view is that the best place for UK-related geocaching discussions is on a completely UK site with UK moderators, with whom we can discuss appropriate guidelines to suit UK sensibilities and culture*. Remember that the Groundspeak "UK Forum" is simply a US Geocaching Forum section, dedicated to talk about UK caching. Not a dedicated UK forum.

(*Edit: "UK sensibilities and culture" is not really what I mean, as I'm aware that it's not just UK people that are able to deal with a little more "robust" debate, but I can't find a phrase that sums it up very well).

As someone who also inhabits UKClimbing I'd say that the key difference is that on UKC such threads are restricted to the "Down the Pub" forum and it's very easy to exclude that forum from your "view new posts" lists if you wish to. The existance of such an easy way to filter out most of the off topic chat is a valuable tool that allows UKC to be different things to different people.

This simple feature is something that appears to be lacking in both the groundspeak and GAGB forums.

[The Hornet]

The existance of such an easy way to filter out most of the off topic chat is a valuable tool that allows UKC to be different things to different people.

This simple feature is something that appears to be lacking in both the groundspeak and GAGB forums.

And if there was an easy way to filter out posts from particular people it would enhance those two forums as well.

[uktim]

And if there was an easy way to filter out posts from particular people it would enhance those two forums as well.

I think we can all agree on that

Joking aside I suspect that is possible but wouldn't be desirable IMO as it would pick indivdual posts out of threads and leave other posts out of context.

[Birdman-of-liskatraz]

In the User Control Panel on this board, there is an ignore people option.

I've added one person to it as a trial... I'll let you know if it works...

Yep! Works perfectly... you just get a...

This message is hidden because <randomnamehere> is on your ignore list.

and theres a similar function over on the GC Forum.. just so you know.

Shame you can't have a private filtered words list..

[studlyone]

This forum software is incredibly easy to modify and it is possible to make filtering of 'bad' words optional. The admins could then just tighten up the censored word list and guests and members of the boards would have the filtering switched on by default.

Users (geoscoundrels for instance) who want full on no bars posting rights can select not to have the filters applied therefore making the forums family or work safe normally but in the privacy of your own "flame proof posting cabins" you can switch the filter off.

That way people who don't mind the words that get filtered can just switch off the boards censorship whilst for the majority of users, censorship using the 'bad words' list would be in place.

It's obviously not a green card for people to forget how we should all behave on public forums but it would make the censorship optional and a users own choice.

[The Hornet]

In the User Control Panel on this board, there is an ignore people option.

I've added one person to it as a trial... I'll let you know if it works...

Yep! Works perfectly... you just get a...

This message is hidden because <randomnamehere> is on your ignore list.

Hey! You're right, only the person I have on my ignore list isn't called randomnamehere

[Birdman-of-liskatraz]

Hey! You're right, only the person I have on my ignore list isn't called randomnamehere

But I'm too polite to say the name of my test subject....


Did you say something Mr Hornet??

[Just Roger]

Hey it also works retrospectively and takes <randomnamehere> out of all threads back in history as well. Neat

[agentmancuso]

It's obviously not a green card for people to forget how we should all behave on public forums but it would make the censorship optional and a users own choice.

Which is exactly how it should be.

[fraggle69]

I draw your attention to: FCUK: FRENCH CONNECTION - Womenswear and Menswear - Style and Fashion and Canute (also known as Cnut) the Great - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. These words aren't profanities, they're anagrams of profanities. Many of the words used in English and on the forums are anagrams of profanities- it doesn't make them profane. Some place names, for example Scunthorpe, actually have the letters in the right order, yet they're not profane either. Please reconsider your three day ban or I shall be forced to take further action.

Paul Smith (an anagram of A Sh*t Lump. The world's full of them if you look...)"[/quote]

So Paul, are you saying asfastasfcuk will get an instant ban for posting on the groundspeak forums? Is is username in contravention of the geocaching human rights bill?

Hmm, it's a heavy Paul Smith!

[Simply Paul]

You might speculate that if he posted twice, that would make him a repeat offender... I couldn't possibly comment

[Birdman-of-liskatraz]

That's boll***s and you know it.

If the thread is about what we wear to go caching or down the pub then FCUK would be used perfectly within context.

The same if we were talking about early members of the British Royal Family and CNUT was used...

But nobody was talking about Clothes or Royalty - were they?

As it was it was used as a way around the "Bad Word Filter"

[fraggle69]

That's boll***s and you know it.

If the thread is about what we wear to go caching or down the pub then FCUK would be used perfectly within context.

The same if we were talking about early members of the British Royal Family and CNUT was used...

But nobody was talking about Clothes or Royalty - were they?

As it was it was used as a way around the "Bad Word Filter"

You tell me what you think this should say 'asfastasfcuk', now tell me he aint gonna be in the poo bin for posting on the forums twice! He certainly doesn't wear fcuk clothing, atleast I hope not!

[Birdman-of-liskatraz]

You tell me what you think this should say 'asfastasfcuk', now tell me he aint gonna be in the poo bin for posting on the forums twice! He certainly doesn't wear fcuk clothing, atleast I hope not!

Oh I hope he is banned...

[fraggle69]

Oh I hope he is banned...

That's not very nice thing to say. Have you considered the user who logged a find on one of my caches, Mastab8
Oddly his email address also uses the number 69, I just thought that was interesting.

[Bill D (wwh)]

I don't think we would allow those user names here. Obviously that would be a committee decision, not mine alone, but if anyone tried to sign up with a username like that I'd put them on hold whilst I consulted the committee.

And I'd prefer not to see any further examples of user names like that given in this thread, please.

[fraggle69]

How do we refer to 'asfastas (you know what's missing here)'?

[Bill D (wwh)]

How do we refer to 'asfastas (you know what's missing here)'?

Just like that seems fine to me!

[fraggle69]

Just like that seems fine to me!

I think it sounds sodding stupid

[The Cache Hoppers]

Having met the cacher that is being spoken of here, I can't see what the issue is. Genuine caching name, genuine person, great father to his kiddies, and has shown exemplary behaviour on the SE forums. I must admit that at first I thought it was a bit odd, now I can see the humour in it. Are people taking things just a bit too seriously maybe?

[Simply Paul]

That's boll***s and you know it.

You who? Do you mean me, or Fraggle, or someone else?

If the thread is about what we wear to go caching or down the pub then FCUK would be used perfectly within context.

I sure as hell wouldn't use it in 'the other place' again in any context. Ban me once, shame on you, ban me twice, shame on me...

The same if we were talking about early members of the British Royal Family and CNUT was used...

Although he was one of the most powerful kings to rule Anglo-Saxon England (not Britain) he was from modern-day Denmark. (You do know you're posting anagrams of rude words, don't you? I was banned for that you know- although not from here, I need to quickly point out.)

But nobody was talking about Clothes or Royalty - were they?

This does sound like it might be about my original post. If so, no, it wasn't about clothes brands or kings. It was about how any automatic dam.n forum filters were daft as you could bypass them - if you wanted to. That was my meaning anyway. Whatever the rights and wrongs of that (and I do apologise to anyone who was genuinely upset by my post, but rest-assured, I was punished for it and will try to make my points without being banned in future) are, the words I posted are NOT profanities. Any more than carp is. If I'm taking this way too personally please forgive me

As it was it was used as a way around the "Bad Word Filter"

Again, if this is about my original post, my motivations have been quite misunderstood by some, not least the mod who banned me. I wouldn't use the rude anagrams of those names on that or any forum; that would be very offensive and would get me a well-deserved ban. I wasn't attacking anyone with them, just the absurdity of having damn turned into dadgum. Have a look at the post before mine to see what I was reacting to. But if it's not about me, please ignore the above

[amberel]

... the words I posted are NOT profanities.

I find it utterly mind boggling that you can't see the gulf between:

1) using words in the natural context of a discussion that completely incidentally happen to be anagrams of offensive words,

2) using anagrams of offensive words because they are anagrams of offensive words.

Rgds, Andy

[sandvika]

Having met the cacher that is being spoken of here, I can't see what the issue is. Genuine caching name, genuine person, great father to his kiddies, and has shown exemplary behaviour on the SE forums. I must admit that at first I thought it was a bit odd, now I can see the humour in it. Are people taking things just a bit too seriously maybe?

Indeed he's a smashing guy and brings much joy and frivolity to caching. With him I've laughed so hard I cried.

However, I think French Connection made an error of judgment by choosing their acronym as their trading name. I would not wear clothes associated with that brand name.

Equally, "AsFastAs French Connection United Kingdom" could arguably have made an error of judgment in his choice of caching name. If you choose to be provocative, you must accept the consequences. I would not ban him from this forum for having that caching name, however, I am not surprised that his choice has finally caught up with him.

By the way, "Sandvika" is Norwegian for "***** *****"!

[Moss Trooper]

Hi Peepseses

As we are disgustin naughty words.. I was ticked off for inapropriate behaviour on tuther side.. OK tellin the guy to wind his neck in was possibly over the edge.. but I wouldnt have thought Prat needed to be edited out. I dont class this as a profanity or any where near it.

The problem is... as has been mentioned is, what is profaine to one is every day speak to another.

Moss T

[Mrs Blorenge]

Hi Peepseses

The problem is... as has been mentioned is, what is profaine to one is every day speak to another.

Moss T

The problem is ( as I see it) that most people adjust their style of language according to where they are speaking it, or, indeed, posting it. The language which is acceptable and the intent in using it will be different in different circumstances.

The language and intent within a post on one forum may be completely different in another one - Some are tightly controlled and moderated, others are more liberal.

What I would write in a post in one place would not necessary be in exactly the same style posted elsewhere. I absorb the 'ethos' and post as I believe to be acceptable for that site or location. The language I use when posting in the UK Forum would be slightly different from that I use in this one, which would be different again from that I use on the phone to some "cold-caller", or that I use in the Pub when chatting with a group of good friends.

Some people seem unable to do this... Just as some people are unable to realise that what that multi-coloured duck may find unacceptable, Mrs Blorenge wouldn't bat an eye at. Like this -

[Simply Paul]

I find it utterly mind boggling that you can't see the gulf between:

1) using words in the natural context of a discussion that completely incidentally happen to be anagrams of offensive words,

2) using anagrams of offensive words because they are anagrams of offensive words.

Rgds, Andy

You're dangerously close to being ignored by me Andy; I can clearly see the difference between 1) and 2). Now answer me a question please. Regardless of context, were the names I used profanities? Yes or No?

[fraggle69]

opcorn:

[The Cache Hoppers]

..... OK tellin the guy to wind his neck in was possibly over the edge.. but I wouldnt have thought Prat needed to be edited out. I dont class this as a profanity or any where near it.
Moss T

Rarely have I enjoyed a posting on the other side as much as I enjoyed this part of that one MossT I rather suspect I am not alone.

[The Hornet]

In a bored moment after reading this thread I happened across this Wikipedia page. I thought it mildly interesting.

[Lost in Space]

In a bored moment after reading this thread I happened across this Wikipedia page. I thought it mildly interesting.

You're dead set on perpetuating this thread aren't you?

[nobbynobbs]

my quick instinctive thought on this is that should you want to use such language then why not type a little more and actually say " french connection uk" that way people don't need to worry about children reading it and yet your original intent still comes over.

though do you really need to swear? pot calling kettle black here as anyone who knows me will say that I do swear and probably too much.

[Moss Trooper]

though do you really need to swear? pot calling kettle black here as anyone who knows me will say that I do swear and probably too much.

As I have always told her who must be obeyed and the little ones.. (28 an 30) but still me bairns, I never swear.....

I just express myself with colour and vigour