Originally posted by LoRD.MuAD'diB
Aren't the words "bloody" and "WTF" just ways to circumvent the swear filter? One thing I've learned through the years is that everyone has their own little equivilant to words they oppose. Flock, Frick, Fu(k, F0ck, it all means the same thing. Pretty much anything that is used as a substitute for these words is to me the same thing. It's circumventing the filter, yes. But it should make no difference wether you modify the words themselves, or use other words to imply them. I understand the need for some kind of rules, but they aren't consistant. If these things are discouraged, then discourage them all.
While I see the need for such filters, I still maintain that there shouldn't be a need for them. The word that F'in is derived from is no different in meaning than the word bloody. They mean the same thing, so there's no reason that one should be discouraged and not the other. But that's just my opinion based upon a perfect society.
Actually I have to agree. I can't stand reading "wtf" within a post. It just screams "i HAVE to say it one way and one way only with no regards for everyone else".
Depending on where the majority of posters and readers come from, certain words could or could not be considered 'foul'. For instance, "bloody" can be expressed in most america without any repercussions at all because it's not deemed foul. It's a 'strong' word modifier, but other than that carries no real meaning. Also, words like "darn" and "ticked" are considered non-vulgar in all ways, yet they represent edited versions of popular 4letter words. They can even be expressed on kids shows.