# ****



## greypilgrim (Aug 9, 2004)

What up with ****? I tried to type a word that wasn't even vulgar and all I got in my post was ****. So I was forced to change the wording of my post. Not that it's that big of a deal of course...

(btw, the word was ****  )


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 10, 2004)

*****, isn't it...


----------



## Valandil (Aug 10, 2004)

If it's not a bad word, I really wish I knew what it was. On another board, when I post 'Aranarth' - I get 'Ara*****'  But it will post if I just spell it like 'Aran-arth'  

Is 'narth' a bad word in any language?


----------



## reem (Aug 10, 2004)

This has happened to me too here. Perhaps the word q-u-e-e-r is sometimes used as a derisive name for homosexuals or something? It was the only thing I could come up with. I've never heard it used in that context, though, and I was just as surprised at it being censored. 
I must agree with Arvedui, it is rather ***** 
reem


----------



## Eledhwen (Aug 10, 2004)

*Qụeer*

This word is used frequently by Tolkien to describe what is considered to be strange and mysterious, or 'not like us' for hobbits (like the saying from the North of England: "There's nowt so qụeer as folk"). This makes things particularly difficult for a Tolkien forum, but can be got round the same way junk mailers get round my spam filter - by using extended alphabets. I managed to write 'qụeer' because the ụ has a dot under it, and so wasn't recognised by the filter.

It is not the vulgar word that offends; how can it? It needs other words around it to apply the offence. And on the other hand, one can write a phrase that offends or sickens without incurring any asterisks, as I'm sure our Mods can testify. The filter rightly excludes some words defined as bodily functions - peoples' sensibilities are different and there are kids using this site. However, it's sad when a word in common usage is coined as a euphamism, and can then be no longer used in its original meaning because it's on the banned list.


----------



## joxy (Aug 10, 2004)

I don't know how the q word came into this, as the word greypilgrim had a problem with had only four letters.
However the q word *is* one that often causes a problem here, so, for those who haven't come across it before, let me note that the censor is wasting its time, as the word is *not* now offensive to (us) gay people, and that indeed many gay people actually use it of themselves quite happily, in expressions such as "Q.... Pride".


----------



## greypilgrim (Aug 10, 2004)

A test:

(erased)

Well, they need to do some upgrading on that filter!


----------



## Arvedui (Aug 11, 2004)

As I am the guilty of making first use of the word que'er, it was because I knew that it would be cencored. What word greypilgrim tried to use, I don't know. But it is obvious that the automatic cencor-thing has some faults...


----------



## Arthur_Vandelay (Aug 11, 2004)

joxy said:


> I don't know how the q word came into this, as the word greypilgrim had a problem with had only four letters.
> However the q word *is* one that often causes a problem here, so, for those who haven't come across it before, let me note that the censor is wasting its time, as the word is *not* now offensive to (us) gay people, and that indeed many gay people actually use it of themselves quite happily, in expressions such as "Q.... Pride".



Yes, there's even an entire branch of academic knowledge that bears the name Q.... Theory.


----------



## Beorn (Aug 11, 2004)

I fixed queer....But what's the other one. Use s p a c e s.


----------



## joxy (Aug 11, 2004)

Arthur_Vandelay said:


> Yes, there's even an entire branch of academic knowledge that bears the name Q.... Theory.


As I said recently, elsewhere, there's no limit to the subjects that academics will take up and write papers on!


----------

