Tony Sidaway wrote:
Bill Konrad said:
I do not understand how you can maintain that all editors would have to bowlderize all of their edits when for more than 99% of the articles there is no consideration whatsoever of bowlderization being an issue.
Well there you go. Who said that it wouldn't be an issue in all edits, for all editors?
I do for one. Off the top of my head I can't think of a single article that I've contributed to in a significant way that would likely ever need any sort of bowlderization to meet any reasonable sort of acceptability (not some hypothetical extreme form of censorship).
Suppose we had a rule saying "no use of the word 'sparrow'".
Now you're just being even more exagerratedly silly.
Bkonrad