cp999 wrote:I've seen a few questions which appeared to give grounds for legal action. I've got definite memories of a 90s machine which mentioned Cecil Parkinson's illegitimate daughter by name]
That's odd CP - Wikipedia states that the injunction was in place between 1993 and 2001, when Flora Keays turned 18, but I definitely remember reading lots about the scandal and Flora Keays' existence prior to 2001. I can only presume that must have been before 1993 - perhaps the quiz question you saw pre-dated that period?
I was racking my brains trying to think which machine had this question, and came to the conclusion that it was probably Treble Top (I think it had a picture of three Tory (ex-)ministers as a subtopic). If so, I guess it did emerge before the injunction, but it was also certainly around a long time after 1993 as well.
Istenem wrote:
something which could offend me if i could be bothered is WOG and YID being allowed in wordgames (meanwhile wet swears like FART and PISS are manually extracted from the wordlist). afaik, these words have no other meaning than the indefensible racism.
The censorship of words on Word Soup/most recent Word Up is truly an enigma to me. The most obvious swearwords have been removed, but a lot are still there. Amusingly, SLUT has been removed, but SLUTTY is still acceptable. Similarly, no to SHIT, but yes to SHITE.
WHAT!!! the South Park game does not resemble South Park. Why do you think that?
The problem for South Park is that it does resemble the show and thats the problem with some folks not liking the content.
One that made me smile when I first saw it (which proves me to be a very bad man indeed) is the question on Jiggy Bank about people being killed in a stampede for ... good luck charms.
About 5 or 6 years ago there was a game called Personality Tester and one of the questions on that asked Q what would you do if you saw a homeless person A Piss on him
It was the wrong answer guys by the way
Nothing like a bit of Bernard Manning humour from cool.
At least there's some internal logic to pissing on a homeless person after initially setting them on fire. The question is though - why would you want to set fire to a homeless person in the first place? Just think of the noxious fumes!
