I'm glad you posted that, because I think we should be allowed to use profanity in quotes. Example:

Hell hath no nipple like. . well anyway

i always love the content checker on the CNN discussion forums. you can't write "It is hitting me" because it takes "is hitting," and combines the "s" in "is" with the first three letters of "hitting" and thinks you're typing in swear words. Someone needs to reprogram that :)




> > > In all seriousness, why is Tarzan never ever drawn with niples?
> >
> > huhh-huh, huhhuh, hunh, he said "niples", huh-huh.....
> >
>
> In all seriousness, why does the family-content checking code in the RinkForum forbid "n-i-p-p-l-e" but not "d*mn" or "h*ll" ? The former is fairly scientific; the latter two could be allowed since their usage can be theological as well as profane. But it's uncommon to see them used in a proper theological sense, and there are certainly acceptable substitutes, such as "condemn" and "Hades". Maybe it's worth adding them to the content checker.
>
> --two minutes elapse--
>
> Hmm.
>
> Actually, I don't think I'd necessarily want to recommend any change in the content checker, but I am curious about the rationale behind some of what's permitted/restricted. Maybe I'll try typing (but not posting) a test message with various scientific anatomical references, to see where the boundaries are.
>
> Anyone remember Beverly Cleary's "Ramona" series of children's books, and the scene wherein Ramona threatens to say a bad word in front of her family? The word was "guts". :-)
>
> Iss "the pest" achar