@Thomas,
The Washington Post forum has a obscenity filter, but people find all sorts of creative ways to slip things past them.
The other day one person was able to post "All Republicans should ƒuck themselves and jump into a volcano" by using the florin sign. Apparently the filter read it as the florin sign and not an "f"
A company I once worked for employed some sort of "nasty word" filter, and the e-mail system would not send a message that contained one of the forbidden words. The only message the sender received was that the e-mail could not be sent, but with no explanation of why.
I got one of these
cannot send message in regards to an e-mail I had attempted to send to several parties, and thinking perhaps I might have had an invalid address for one of the recipients, checked and confirmed they were correct and resent. Same result.
I assumed there was a temporary problem with the server and so waited an hour or two and then resent again. Same result.
Finally I asked for the assistance of one of our IT guys and he suggested that it might be the "nasty word" filter that was rejecting it. I knew I hadn't used any obscenities in either their natural state or with some cute disguise, so I scoured the e-mail for a possibly offending word but could find none.
Apparently the system didn't prohibit the printing of "nasty words" so I printed a copy of the e-mail and asked a colleague to take a look.
He found the problem in a matter of seconds. I had written.
"I am not certain whether or not our insistence on this provision of the contract will queer the deal, but I know they are not happy with it."
When I changed the sentence to read:
"I am not certain whether or not our insistence on this provision of the contract will kill the deal, but I know they are not happy with it"
The email sailed on to all intended parties.
