Speech without cursing is like soup without salt. There's something incredibly prosaic about having our words clipped and neutered. I'm not going to take some arcane, roundabout route to trick the character recognition into thinking I'm not cursing when I am. This isn't the DisneyForums, and some of the words that are rejected are now considered so benign that it makes the entire rule-set arbitrary and anachronistic. Now, I'm fully aware that the 1st amendment doesn't apply here, but if the object of the rules are to keep a modicum of civility, then isn't it foolhardy to read from one member "I can't understand you with that negroid's dong in your mouth", and yet not being able to say "I don't give a *****"? Constrained speech is constrained ideas, because a correctly applied curse word can be just the ticket for a certain situation, and by removing them, it's not elevating the culture of the discourse, either. I thought the new ethos of PF was that "blanket" anythings were counterproductive? Why not treat cursing like any other rule item, deal with it if and when it becomes egregious?