Mike Arrington Introduces Us To the "First F*ucking Amendement"

Re:Mike Arrington Introduces Us To the "First F*ucking Amend... by sneak on Thursday September 15, 2011 @10:52AM (#3000587)

  Serious question, not rhetoric: Why do people write "f*ck" whe they mean "fuck"?

  They ran his original, "fuck"-containing quote in the story, and "F*ck" in the headline.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mike Arrington Introduces Us To the "First F*ucking Amend... by dfxm12 on Thursday September 15, 2011 @10:56AM (#3000608)

It's considered bad form to have profanity in headlines. Of course, having a minced oath like f*ck in its place kinda defeats the point...

I'd rather not have sensationalized headlines, but oh well.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mike Arrington Introduces Us To the "First F*ucking Amend... by sneak on Sunday September 18, 2011 @05:53PM (#3011373)

Why is it considered bad form? Considered by whom?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mike Arrington Introduces Us To the "First F*ucking Amend... by dfxm12 on Wednesday September 21, 2011 @09:38AM (#3021920)

By style guides, like the one by AP.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mike Arrington Introduces Us To the "First F*ucking Amend... by darklajid on Thursday September 15, 2011 @10:57AM (#3000609)

Clbuttic problem of different (and sometimes hard to understand/judge) case of NSFW regulations maybe?

It makes no sense to me either, though.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Mike Arrington Introduces Us To the "First F*ucking Amend... by fferen on Thursday September 15, 2011 @12:25PM (#3000957)

And, of course, the submission title uses the entire word AND the asterisk, which is perhaps an attempt to poke fun? Or just a funny mistake.

[ Parent | on HN ]