>I read it when you posted and didn't take offense. The "F" word was in the text which is probably why it got removed. However, I thought when quoting, it was allowed (as a part of the context), but I guess not.
>
>I don't see how you understand it to be religious censorship though?

It's the monotheistic religions who say that part of the dictionary is offensive. Even the word used to describe is "profane", which initially meant "out of the church". When used to intentionally insult someone, expletives are described as "curse" or "swear" (at least in English - other languages may use a dedicated word) - words with religious connotation. Sex is a sin only in these monotheistic religions, so this section of the dictionary is bad by their definition, not mine.

>We've had this discussion before. Some folks get banned (for a period) for the same offense (using offensive language) here. It is purely subjective and up to the owner (this is not a public forum with no controls). It's obviously not a democratic process as my recommendations have never been followed (not banning or censoring) - it appears to be a case of a few have louder voices for some reason or perhaps the owner just happens to share their views on the issue. It doesn't matter since it is a private web site and under the complete authoritarian control of the owner. Canada is just as capitalist as the U.S. in this case. :o)

>Frankly, I don't like it. However, it's his right. If I owned a company or a website I would have the complete freedom to decide what is allowed and what is not (as long as I didn't cross over the line of what the law prohibits and protects).

Yes, we did talk about this before, and it is as you say. However, the louder voices are not necessarily any majority, they may only be louder. So I actually want to see whether they really are a majority.

>Just a thought: if the same quote was put on tv, the offensive language (prohibited by the FCC) would be removed...

Yet another answer to your question from a few years ago, when you asked for example of laws the Christians force upon others.

> I think the message should remain (quote intact) except for the one offensive word and then redacted put in its place to show that the quote is not really in full but certain offensive language removed.

Nope, I'd rather have it erased. I'm not censoring what I quote, I'd rather be censored out altogether. I will not fake a quote, that'd be unethical. I will not resort to that kind of stool.