FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - OT: Why does the Daily *** seek to protect me from such words as ***?
Old Oct 7, 2010 | 8:19 am
  #1  
Roger
FlyerTalk Evangelist
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: London and Zurich
Programs: AA, BA, Mucci: Sir Roger des Directions Routières, PCR
Posts: 13,609
OT: Why does the Daily *** seek to protect me from such words as ***?

I'm getting pretty ****ed tired of such ****papers as the Daily H**e and the Daily T*******h using asterisks to protect me from naughtiness. Newspapers for adults don't bother with this convention.

You can often guess whatever the nastiness is because they sometimes wrap the first and last letters around the asterisks. Not today, though. The Daily H**e manages to spell a 2-letter word as **. Gosh, what can it be, that I'm not allowed to look at uncensored?

Talking about her husband Billy Connolly, Pamela Stephenson is quoted thus:
Originally Posted by Daily H**e
She says that prior to persuading him to give up alcohol, ‘he could drink 11 whiskies and still get it **’.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/ar...t-Murdoch.html

Now I'm as broad-minded or as sensitive as the next person, but I have never been offended by the word **.

Standards are slipping, though. In the same edition, discussing a 'Carry On' film, this appears:
Originally Posted by Daily H**e
It stars Sid James as effete English nobleman Sir Rodney Ffing (pronounced ‘effing’, of course) ...
Tut! tut! They clearly mean ***ing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvshowbiz...ys-homage.html
Roger is offline