The words are censored, nbd. I used it for effect, but if it's not your cup of tea, I understand.
Sorry about my blabbing, I really want a 1dx on this forum . Simple and well-stated.
If you have something to say, blab away, ...but "well-stated"?
Maybe without the "s..." and F......" that you frequently seem unable to express yourself without.
I am no language prude, having spent a 37 year career surrounded by "man-talk" (firefighting), but do we really need/want that class-level of discourse here?
Thank you for the civil response, ...I was not sure whether or not to expect one.
This thread is providing fun for many, with plenty of fee-wheeling give and take, and is quite informative as well, if wheat can be separated from chaff
I am smart enough to know that the exchanges are well above my tech understanding, and so have not attempted to make any contribution re. the main subject. And I note that no one seems to think my (admittedly off-topic) comments on the level of discourse worthy of support. Still, since I have a bit of time, I will call you on a few points, in the nit-picking spirit of this thread:
1. "words are censored" - Not all, even by your definition, ...check your post #64.
2. Effective "censorship" - An image of a female torso with the chest area covered by a black panel is censored, ...you cannot see or know with certainty what is covered. The (horrible, dangerous!)subject is effectively censored.
The letter "S" with accompanying ellipsis, if the reader is grammatically erudite to any degree, quite effectively and clearly reveals, rather than "hides" the subject, ...you are knowingly throwing you-know-what in the game
Camouflage cloth with an image of what is beneath is faux, no? "S..." will do as a synonym (rather than obfuscation) for " a certain mushy, odorous substance which emanates from a posterior body orifice". I. e., "S..." by any other name smells the same.
Reading the other posts in your threads should indicate that such usage is not the norm here. I find no other examples of the S and F usage, contrasting with your 19 usages in 13 posts (by my count, in your profile post file).
3. use for "emphasis" - Yes, many(most?) of us (myself included!) use these terms occasionally for emphasis, ...but it would seem that we have somewhat different standards re. the appropriate places for such usage. Also, frequent, rather than infrequent use deprives them of their novel or "impact" emphasis effect. And continuous frequent use tends to make such use habitual(!) so that use can easily be inadvertent rather than deliberate.
My intent is to suggest that this forum will not be enhanced if the bar is lowered so that what is now an anomaly should become the norm. The inter-net has numerous examples which to me illustrate that there are indeed more and less "classy" places for idea exchange, ...I am simply voting that we preserve the prevailing status of this one.
Thanks for all your tech input, ...very interesting.
Apologies if the tone of these comments strikes you as pedantic, ...sometimes the only way to get something said, is to say it!
I have had my say. To avoid possible digression into hostility, I will not respond further on this subject.
Your comments (or those of others) welcome.