Thanks for the response Bronco. I agree wholeheartedly with your third sentence too.
The funny thing is, that even within the context of the filter is is painfully obvious what is being said. If I type "I hate you, you *******, go **** yourself" everyone knows what the words were in the sentence are, just because they are "*'s" does not mean it is unknown. So if someone gets mad and happens to type a word that is not filtered for whatever reason, but is not actively trying to bypass a known filtered word, that is worse? That is my point.
PAINFULLY OBVIOUSLY the content of the entire post is the most damning, and that was KEK's point to begin with, that he felt a particular post by viny was not ban-worthy just because of ONE WORD. It was clarified by Jason that it was due to a different post, but I was commenting on KEK's original assertion.
So another interesting point. Letter of the law vs intent. So I bypassed the filter by pointing out the piece of anatomy that is filtered that I was using to make my point (and I am eagerly awaiting my infraction - first one on Jazz Fanz). It is a rather benign term, especially in the context of the sentence as written. But here is the rub: Trout (just to name one person, it is done by many) can continually call someone a dick, or point out that he loves his dick and thinks it is beautiful, or equally as crude and potentially offensive content, but if I bypass the filter and use the actual anatomical word for "dick" (*****) in a discussion that actually warrants the use of scientific terms for anatomy (say the circumcision thread) I would get the infraction, but Trout would not? I am willing to bet that "dick" is viewed as more crass and offensive than the word used in biology class to identify the same appendage. Just like in this little tirade of mine here, I used that word (dick) over and over and it is fine, but if I had once, just once, bypassed the filter to use the correct anatomical term, it is infraction-worthy. Strange.
I know the anatomy issue has been discussed, and I am not trying to beat a dead horse with that, but that is one good example of a filtered word potentially being more benign than non-filtered word based on content of the post.
That was the point I was trying to make. How can one single word, just because it happens to not be in the filter, if you didn't purposefully intend to bypass the filter, warrant an infraction?
Colton obviously thinks that is patently false and that I am an idiot for thinking that way. Curious what other people think.