if you know

Lol I couldn't even remember what I wrote there. I guess I understand why Eric wants those words out to maintain appearances or something but it's kind of silly limiting the vocabulary of a discussion rather than the nature of it. I maintain there was nothing offensive in my post. That doesn't mean I have a problem with the moderation though.

The only thing worse than the F bomb is the H bomb. You can destroy whole islands with the latter. 

ha!

Can I post here Sex Pistols?

ha!

I can't believe adults don't feel silly thinking it's perfectly fine to write "f-bomb" but not the other word, which if I included here would be removed.  Censorship of topics or ideas can have a lot of purposes, but censoring specific words when equivalent synonyms are allowed, and everyone knows the equivalencies, is a weird concept.  Eventually someone always trots out the "we need to protect the children" argument, a mainstay of bookburners and censors for many centuries.

What's the need for vulgarity anyways? I do not curse because I lack to see the point of it. No good comes of it, and profanity is profanity. Nothing more, nothing less. Eh, but I probably don't understand it - which is fine by me.

You'll go far with logical skills like that.  I hope you're giving serious consideration to becoming a lawyer! 

I think you totally missed the point. And did I say I wanted to become a lawyer? Nooo. I wince at the idea of that. (I'm an honest person, or at least believe myself to be) Quit changing the subject and quit using weak pointless insults. Thanks for understanding. 

Is this the son of theGrobe?

Wait, what? Am I not understanding something?

I'm just fool

Put my money on "yes". 

Are you refuting the "we need to protect the children" argument by claiming it has been used by bookburners and censors for centuries? Even if it has, does that in itself mean it's a poor argument? This simply assumes that all arguments that have been made by bookburners and censors for centuries are bad. Not too much substance to that refutation in my opinion.

And of all the arguments bookburners and censors may have made for centuries, "we need to protect our children" is likley the one with which I would most strongly agree. Whether I agree or disagree with any of the other arguments bookburners and censors have made for centuries, I don't know because I don't know any other arguments that they have made. 

I agree. Censorships are placed for reasons. I don't know much about other reasons for censorship, but protecting children from 'stuff' of that sort is important. At least, I believe so. It's good for sites such as this to have censorships in place. Honestly, I don't care whether or not someone else curses, as long as they don't do so in front of children. But, that's my opinion and it probably doesn't matter. 

Absolute and total nonsense.  The statement implied no such assumption.

My point about the "we need to protect the children"  approach is that it has been trivialized to the point of being meaningless.  People often use that excuse for censoring purposes that would otherwise have no justification, because they know if they suggest children are at risk, there are people who will immediately support their cause regardless of whether it makes sense.  Too often, hiding behind the excuse of kids is simply a tool used by people to impose their own personal hangups onto others.

Is it an excuse? Do you really understand what you are saying?

Children should not hear or see such things, because they do not understand the concepts. Cursing is one thing, but in front of children? Seriously? Unnecessary. Oh, and please use an example of your claim. Show us this "excuse" used in order to place "unnecessary" censorships.

hi borgqueen,i watch the ultimate fighting championship.while the 2 guys fighting on the ground the announcer#1 said to the other announcer#2 that the 2guys while they fighting on the ground are like a chess game in the ground.so my question is what is the meaning of what the announcer#1 said to the other announcer#2?.i wait again to your response borgqueen.

Television provides lots of examples.  Look at all the groups decrying various shows over the decades.  Many of these groups don't even agree with one another on what is bad-- some have language hangups, some have sex hangups, some have violence hangups, some have religious hangups, but they all say the reason they want their particular show banned is "for the good of the children".  Married with Children had that nutcase Terry Rakolta trying to get it banned after she saw an episode she didn't like.  The Simpsons has been a target pretty much ever since it came out, and episodes regularly get censored before airing in the U.K.  Whether or not you like such shows, they are obviously quite popular and accepted by a large number of people, and yet still reviled by some who use kids as an excuse to try to get rid of them.

There are also plenty of examples of books people have tried to keep out of libraries, especially school libraries.  If you're really interested, the American Library Association keeps an up-to-date listing of book bannings and challenges.  In 2008, the most recent year compiled, there were more than 500 challenges.