Smut filter: Difference between revisions
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit |
||
Line 33: | Line 33: | ||
Number of hits for this term: 1<br> | Number of hits for this term: 1<br> | ||
Matched text: shit}}}}Literally, you cannot make this shit up. The captioned message came back from a message which, confessedly, ''did'' contain the word “shit”. No objections, I guess — prudes gonna be prudes — and what good would the machines of loving grace be if they couldn’t supercharge corporate primness — but how that end is achieved by stripping out all the clean words, binning them, and telegraphing only the profane one, repeatedly, at the recipient achieves that end we can can only speculate. | Matched text: shit}}}}Literally, you cannot make this shit up. The captioned message came back from a message which, confessedly, ''did'' contain the word “shit”. No objections, I guess — prudes gonna be prudes — and what good would the machines of loving grace be if they couldn’t supercharge corporate primness — but how that end is achieved by stripping out all the clean words, binning them, and telegraphing only the profane one, repeatedly, at the recipient achieves that end we can can only speculate. | ||
{{Sa}} | |||
*[[Email]] | |||
*[[All watched over by machines of loving grace]] |
Revision as of 19:51, 4 October 2021
Office anthropology™
|
Literally, you cannot make this shit up. The captioned message came back from a message which, confessedly, did contain the word “shit”. No objections, I guess — prudes gonna be prudes — and what good would the machines of loving grace be if they couldn’t supercharge corporate primness — but how that end is achieved by stripping out all the clean words, binning them, and telegraphing only the profane one, repeatedly, at the recipient achieves that end we can can only speculate.