Why does the auto censor edit words that the average 9 year will hurl at you if you happen to get in their way in your local shopping mall? Who are we trying to protect here? Who in the world is so sensetive that to see the word ■■■■■■ in print and be offended,people call me it all the time on the road 
,but I dont go to pieces,I carry on stoicly doing my duty.Ignoring them and thinking of things to post? Nah ■■■■■■■■! cant be bothered! ■■■■ em.
Dunno then?:
Why does the auto censor edit words that the average 9 year will hurl at you if you happen to get in their way in your local shopping mall? Who are we trying to protect here? Who in the world is so sensetive that to see the word [zb] in print and be offended,people call me it all the time on the road
That is why the average 9 year old hurls abuse at you. lack of respect, poor parents who do not pull up their kids, or songs that promote drugs, guns and swearing.
I lost both my parents but even when my mother died I don’t remember using swear words in her presence. If I had I would have had my arse kicked. 
I see “■■■■■■■■” on my original, and in your quote got through? 
The more we use auto censors the more the little ■■■■■■■ ■■■■■■ ■■■■■■■■ will stop ■■■■■■■ shouting abuse at us the little ■■■■■.
Maybe one day we might be able to accept that people swear and just get on with life an accept it for ■■■■ sake you can be arrested for swearing now surely there are other crimes more important like stealing someones bike that should be arrestable ?.
■■■■ off off
I would say that the IDEA is not to encourage other 9 year olds to use such language.
That is the same reason for the 9pm watershed on TV
No harm is trying, even if it does not really work 
Those that do not want to read profanities on websites would be put off a site such as this if it was allowed - do we want that ■■
No doubt there’ll be a facebook group set up at any moment to combat the rising tide in abusive… erm… noises, that emanate from the vocal cords of these prospective adults.
■■■■■■ !!! 
Even non-profanities are banned, such as the past tense of “flick”, although the word “flick” itself isn’t banned
Harry Monk:
Even non-profanities are banned, such as the past tense of “flick”, although the word “flick” itself isn’t banned
You mean Flicked?
ETA: 
That’s just overkill.
Btw Harry, Holy Thread Resurrection, man! 
Yes, I only wander into this part of the forum once or twice a year so it’s always topical to me
It’s not specifically banned, it gets caught by a wildcard because I got bored of trying to think of every possible permutation and censor-wiggle there is for the obvious word it’s aimed at, so I just bunged in an asterisk instead.
So there you go, you can blame me.
Oh, and no, I still can’t be arsed to do it the long way, life’s too short, get over it.
That’s fine, it caught me by surprise when I wrote about an object which flic ked up from my tyre and hit a car and it got the ■■■■ treatment but I do understand, sort of. I would say though, imho, that you do not need to constantly chase these inventive ways of suggesting a certain word, it is enough that the word does not appear as itself, which seems to be the general policy in the newspaper world, where a few symbols, # and * for example, replace the second and third letter of the F word.
Still, I suppose at least we are allowed to say “Scunthorpe” these days.