Perhaps trying to circumvent a filter in the forum for profanity is not a smart idea...
Or, perhaps, blocking out certain words because some easily-offended individuals find them objectionable despite there being no rational reason for this is not a smart idea. Perhaps bowdlerizing written expression because distant tradition has arbitrarily labeled some words and concepts as verboten is a stunningly stupid idea. What is the purpose? And what is the justification? I know you have the power to set whatever standards you like, but is that right or necessary? What good is accomplished by restricting free speech?
I find it puzzling that whenever there is an objection to anything or any form of controversy over content, preference is given to those seeking repression and action is taken on the side of restriction, never freedom. How is it that if I object to limitations and I am offended by the concept of being forced to conform to other people's beliefs about propriety and morality I get no traction, but the moment anyone objects to something they are given deference and their whims are catered to? There is no balance. There is no respect for any but the most narrow and strict definition of what is right and proper.
I can see that maybe an argument could be made for material intended for the smallest of children, that they not be immersed in language and discussions that are of a more crude and adult nature than they might be prepared to handle, but this is not a children's property. It deals with heavy, intellectual and controversial topics best approached by the highly mature, intelligent, and educated. Bleaching it to a standard better fit for a kindergarten classroom is suspect at best. I object wholeheartedly and vehemently to such repressive censorship of speech.
Of course, I have no power to make change. But I can state my position for the record and invite others to think on the subject. Consider my complaint filed.
The D in IDIC doesn't stand for discrimination, and neither does this poster.