In that I am probably the offending cr***er referred to by ozstamps, I suppose it is incumbent upon me to chime in here. If I offended anyone by my language, I apologize, since that was certainly not my intent, although it definitely was my intent to attract attention and emphasize my strong feelings on the subject that was at hand. And I'll certainly be the first to admit that the "c*" word (that one, at least), might be more objectionable than the "p*" word, which I consider fairly innocuous.

I should point out, though, that there is a practical reason that Catman would be expected to have a more sensitive word filter than most of the rest of us. He writes, professionally, every day and under very tight deadlines, for a broadcast news outlet. He can not afford to let even a little offensive invective pass from his keyboard through to an anchor's lips, who, in most cases, believe it or not, will read exactly what appears before them on the prompter. One mistake can doom an entire career, and in this business, that has happened on countless occasions. So when you write as much as Catman does, there really is no way to have different habits for different writing venues; it's just too easy to forget where you are.

Having said all that, I have a proposal: If the UBB language filter is user-definable, why not let those FT'ers who wish to, vote on the no-no dictionary? I, for one, will have absolutely no problem pledging beforehand to abide by the result.