I agree that it is a hard problem -- which is why I said it was lazy to implement the simplest form of the solution that is so deficient and just pretend that a

I agree that it is a hard problem -- which is why I said it was lazy to implement the simplest form of the solution that is so deficient and just pretend that all is well. It is basically trying to solve problems in software that is in actuality a people / management problem. Of course, there are conflicting requirements or external factors that come into play. If the product will fail (or you will get fined or thrown in jail or whatever) if someone enters a bad word, then after taking enough reasonable precautions to not have false positives then at least warn the user ahead of time. For example in a web forum app, you could pop up an error on submit, with the censor-substitution that it would apply, and have a selection box that the user can check to indicate that this is a false positive. The message then gets held for moderator review (or goes through by default with the censor marks, until moderator review it). If it is a business app, then part of the popup message could include a link to corporate policy that says a false claim of a false positive is subject to employee discipline or whatever. I just don't like when it blindly cuts out a persons name without any warning to the user, because the censor characters imply that the message submitter actually entered a cuss word that they didn't (i.e., it is a false accusation bordering on libel).