Jeff actually took a break from pontificating (I joke! I joke! He never takes a break :o) the other day to celebrate his manly superiority over a leaking toilet. Rock on, brother! Such seemingly small victories we men will remember with a smile on our death beds ("Me the mighty Zog! Me conquer woolly carburetor!").
But I didn't come here to talk about Jeff's manliness - he's done enough of that himself.
I'm here to talk about what I presume to be an automatic filtering system, namely on his blog comments. One of the responses said:
I've done the whole ball**** thing before.Now, manly men will recognize that what was elided was the second half of "ballcock" (since Jeff is using Blogger and so am I, it will be interesting to see if the whole word gets spelled out in my post, since it got snipped in comments on his - go look at the link if above it does, because when I wrote this I DID spell it out. And I type it again and again - "ballcock - ballcock - ballcock").
Here's my thing with such failed attempts at eliding "bad words". "Ball" is bad, too - at least as a verb. At least if you think such verbs compounded with such nouns are bad things. So shouldn't "ballcock", wimped down to "ball****", have ultimately been reduced to "********"? Or was the original commenter too wimpy to write the second half? Dunno. Don't care.
What I do know is automated censorship systems suck for this very reason. Because "ball****" is ludicrous, and "********" would've been even more so, except perhaps more poetic in its Puritanical wildcarding:
I've done the whole ******** thing before.That's WAY better, don't you think? What potential! That sentence could go anywhere!
So, what whole "********" thing have you done before?