WARNING: This message written by a convicted obscenist!

SNIP>
>However, I do think that measures against obscenity (among others) should be more systematical.
>
SNIP

Hilmar,
You've hit the problem here. "Systematical" can be applied to scan the words in any message and set the sensitivity flag and to possibly issue a warning to a writer of a message.
Unfortunately, "systematical" does not work too well when it comes to word twisting or mis-intepretation or insulting or any number of other things that are far far more problematic than a swear word here or there!

The late Ed Rauh (I'd say 'may God bless his soul' but he wouldn't appreciate that) - no finer technician has attended this forum - was THE absolute master of the insult, hurling them to many people in his time at UT. Yet the number of sensitive messages originated by him was virtually nil!

You may not be aware of this but the infamous 'effWord' is used commonly in the French Canadian culture, talking either French of English, to describe something that is not working or is messed up or otherwise has problems. The swear words of their own culture relate mainly to religion!

It's very easy to apply "systematics" to discrete words. It's much harder to consider the context of words used, both in the light of current circumstances and in the 'historical' relationship with people or issues or whatever.

I continue to be amazed (but do accept it as fact) that ADULTS continue to get so worked up about a well-chosen swear word but sit back and seem to enjoy a bout of insults (without swearing) between two people.

From now on I plan to use numbers myself, where only *I* will understand the true meaning intended! At least that way I'll be able to feel that I was able to express myself as I wish to express myself.
So if you or others feel hurt by numbers, better get me into your twit filter promptly.

cheers