# Asterisks in threads titles



## Paulfromitaly

Hello,

I've noticed that some Mods tend to modify threads titles which contain vulgar terms changing some letters with an asterisk ( fuck --> f*ck).
Wouldn't this kind of correction make the thread almost impossible to find through the search feature using for example "fuck" as key word and therefore quite useless?


----------



## cuchuflete

Good question Paul,

I believe the search function also considers text within the threads, and the general practice here is to 
disfigure the word only in the thread title, and to leave the vulgarism 'as is' in the thread content, so there should be no problem finding such threads.   

I just tested this, using the word 'fuck' for the test.  I got an immediate result of 500+ threads, including this one at the top of the list:  





> Flying f**k


----------



## Paulfromitaly

cuchuflete said:


> Good question Paul,
> 
> I believe the search function also considers text within the threads, and the general practice here is to
> disfigure the word only in the thread title, and to leave the vulgarism 'as is' in the thread content, so there should be no problem finding such threads.
> 
> I just tested this, using the word 'fuck' for the test.  I got an immediate result of 500+ threads, including this one at the top of the list:



Sure, you're right, it's only the "search titles only" feature that wouldn't find any more a thread with a disfigured word in the title.
Do you reckon there's no other solution than disfiguring a vulgar term?


----------



## Etcetera

Paulfromitaly said:


> Do you reckon there's no other solution than disfiguring a vulgar term?


I believe it's necessary to disfigure such words in threads' titles. 
I remember opening the Slavic Languages Forum once and seeing a thread entitled with a Russian swear word. A very offensive swear word. 
I was shocked.  Of course, I understood perfectly that the thread starter wasn't aware of the real meaning of that word, but nevertheless.


----------



## ElaineG

Hey Paul,

I'm with you. I've never been sure why "f*ck" is less offensive than "fuck"  .  After all, we all know what it means.

And it does mess up the thread display on dictionary pages, because those are keyed to titles.   For example, if you look up fuck in the eng/it dictionary, you only get one thread when I'm sure there have been more.

I've seen some people say that it's to protect children who may be online. But if a kid sees **s, that's pretty much the one way to be _sure_ they'll click on the thread.  

I defer to those who find that it protects their sensibilities, but I don't really understand.  But then, I'm from NY, and we're pretty beastly when it comes to cursing, so I'm not the best judge.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

ElaineG said:


> Hey Paul,
> 
> I'm with you. I've never been sure why "f*ck" is less offensive than "fuck"  .  After all, we all know what it means.
> 
> And it does mess up the thread display on dictionary pages, because those are keyed to titles.   For example, if you look up fuck in the eng/it dictionary, you only get one thread when I'm sure there have been more.
> 
> I've seen some people say that it's to protect children who may be online. But if a kid sees **s, that's pretty much the one way to be _sure_ they'll click on the thread.
> 
> I defer to those who find that it protects their sensibilities, but I don't really understand.  But then, I'm from NY, and we're pretty beastly when it comes to cursing, so I'm not the best judge.



That's another good point: we all know what f*ck, sl*t, and ar*e mean anyway..
(a beastly behaving Panda..cool! )


----------



## cuchuflete

More background, and then maybe a personal (non-moderator) opinion:

-Somehow, in the course of vB forum software upgrades, we have lost the ability to put 
in the titles.
-Mike gets a fair amount of hate mail from people who don't agree with having words like fuck in the dictionaries
-We have sought a compromise by saying that it is fine to discuss vulgar words, not use them gratuitously, and avoid using them in thread titles, without some distortion, in defference to the   young and/or more 'reserved' (puritanical?).

Personally, I think that the disfigurement option does, as someone else suggested, do more to draw attention to the word than simply writing it normally.  But then, I'm not the one getting all the email protests.  Even if we get back the ability to put   in thread titles, the effect will be the same.
Threads about vulgar words will stand out, and possibly get more attention from those we would protect.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

cuchuflete said:


> More background, and then maybe a personal (non-moderator) opinion:
> 
> -Somehow, in the course of vB forum software upgrades, we have lost the ability to put
> in the titles.
> -Mike gets a fair amount of hate mail from people who don't agree with having words like fuck in the dictionaries
> -We have sought a compromise by saying that it is fine to discuss vulgar words, not use them gratuitously, and avoid using them in thread titles, without some distortion, in defference to the   young and/or more 'reserved' (puritanical?).
> 
> Personally, I think that the disfigurement option does, as someone else suggested, do more to draw attention to the word than simply writing it normally.  But then, I'm not the one getting all the email protests.  Even if we get back the ability to put   in thread titles, the effect will be the same.
> Threads about vulgar words will stand out, and possibly get more attention from those we would protect.



I can understand yours and Mike's concern about this matter, but we can't deny that people learning a foreign language will come across, sooner or later, with many vulgar words and the correct use and comprehension of these terms is essential.


----------



## fenixpollo

Paul said:
			
		

> That's another good point: we all know what f*ck, sl*t, and ar*e mean anyway..


"Ar*e"?  What does that mean? 

Since it's a public place, I think it's reasonable for the site administrator to adhere to the sense of decency of our more conservative viewers.  The same would be true in a school or work setting, or in another public place.


----------



## Paulfromitaly

fenixpollo said:


> "Ar*e"?  What does that mean?
> 
> Since it's a public place, I think it's reasonable for the site administrator to adhere to the sense of decency of our more conservative viewers.  The same would be true in a school or work setting, or in another public place.



Agreed, but still I'm not sure that "fu*king as*hole" is more refined and less coarse than the starless version..


----------



## fenixpollo

As far as your sensibilities are concerned, but sensibilities are subjective and some people would be more offended to see unmodified vulgarities in their native language than you would be.  "Arse", for example, is an innofensive and quaint artifact of another culture, as far as I'm concerned; while others would be offended.


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:


> "Ar*e"?  What does that mean?



It's a word we Irish are loath to spell out it in full, and which we refuse to capitalise in the 'normal' manner. It is the name of thomas ar?e, the composer of Rule Brittannia. 




fenixpollo said:


> Since it's a public place, I think it's reasonable for the site administrator to adhere to the sense of decency of our more conservative viewers.  The same would be true in a school or work setting, or in another public place.


I have recently taken up an educational course where I have internet access. I am permitted to visit WordRef forums, but, there is a censor application installed on the server and I often find I cannot open pages.
I don't know what words are being 'caught', but I'd like it if whoever is using them stopped.


----------

