Ok, I’ll take a leap of faith and postulate that the star-spangled bingo stands for FUCKING. So what? FUCKING FUCKING FUCKING. Nothing wrong with the word, so why blind people with starlight? “Anal” could be just as offensive; why the discrimination?

What offends me much more than your use of the word itself, R, is the capitalization. Why are you shouting?!

I admit that string of asterisks did feel wrong when I typed it in the first place. I wasn’t thinking. Now, I have considered two options: I either omit the qualification altogether, or I reveal the word “fucking” (correctly postulated, Raphael) and follow the rules by making a grammatical error right after. However, the obscurity of this rule might confuse the majority of the readers, so the second option is less attractive. So the asterisks have been snipped.

For those of you wondering what this is all about, this entry used to contain the phrase “no more ******* buzzing!”

Orestes - ok, that’s a good justification for removing it.

“T” - I am in turn offended by, in order of increasing intensity, your impromptu punctuation, the truncation of my name, your being offended by the word ‘fucking’, your uncourageous anonymity, the irrelevancy of your question-exclamation, your misguiding projection on the accoustics of capital letters, your americanised spelling, your introduction of your otherwise inconsequential personal preferences, and the unbelievable density of offensive material in your short, unconstructive, participation.

<whisper>Du~ude! That’s Tania!</whisper>

I hardly expected to elicit such rancor! My intent (though not articulated, I admit) was to show that your argument might have been better served had you not drawn attention to the word ‘fucking’ by capitalizing it. In giving it equal treatment you might have shown that it is a word like any other and should be treated as such. In my inconsequential opinion, you have undermined your point by your punctuation.

As far as personal preferences are concerned, what is this site (and your heated response, for that matter) but a flagrant display of personal preference? But I’ll desist, lest my increasing inconsequentiality render me nonexistent in your eyes. As it is, I’m already anonymous.

I shall be focussing my efforts on not letting this colour my apparently misquided idealisation of you as a person of good humour. Orestes, thank you for recognising me.

Oh, hi Tania. I’d have an easier time were I responding to a faceless name, such as the mysterious “T” you yourself adopted for some obscure reason. But you seem comfortable with personal affront so I’ll follow suit:

“Rancour” and “bad humour” are again your own projections; my words are have no emotional content, so I don’t appreciate such “criticism”. Unlike you, I never criticised your (mis-expressed) intent, merely the words I read, in terms of language and assumptions. I even refrained from reacting to what I could have called a paternalising tone. Also, re-reading my post would help you notice that I did not characterise your opinions as inconsequential but your preferences, as far those concerned my own impersonal mode of expression.

Instead, I suggest you focus your efforts on not transfering content-based discussion to personal levels and on helping your words converge to your meaning.

you make no sense, Raphael

that might be because I have his hair and umbrella at my place. sometimes he is a fucking foolishness.

“whoa..”.. that is all the little one has to say..