It occurred to me that might be a way to bring existing stories on the archive in line with archive policy without forcing a re-write but still allowing readers to know exactly what the writer intended. But it's just a suggestion. Feel free to ignore it.
Thanks for the suggestion, Sheila, but, to be honest, I've never really understood this convention.
I remember, years ago when I was first reading stories on the Archive I'd notice that they used that method often to get around people using the word 'god'. It would be G_d or something similar. And I could never understand what the difference was between that and just plain 'god' itself. It's obvious when reading what the word is intended to be, so wouldn't you be just as well using the actual word?
So it's a convention that's always baffled me. But perhaps there's a point to it that I'm missing and someone can enlighten me.
Nancy, I've never been aware that 'bloody' is a taboo word in the UK. It's always been perfectly innocuous as far as I've always known. I do recall that it was considered a no no to use when I was a kid, which would often lead to kids chanting a rebuttal when chided by their peers for using it:
"Bloody's in the Bible
Bloody's in the book
If you don't believe me
Take a bloody look!"
But that was in the sixties. It hasn't caused many waves that I've known about in any recent decade.
LabRat
