

Ask HN: Would you submit this paper with its literal title? - yannis

I came across this paper titled <i>Fuck</i>. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=896790 It is a 78 page paper that explores all aspects of the word, which I thought would interest the polymaths here.<p>It also has some very unusual information like the piece that:<p><pre><code>     ..during the last Egyptian dynasties, legal documents were 
       sealed with the phrase, "As for him who shall disregard it, 
       may he be fucked by a donkey." The hieroglyphic for the 
       phrase—two large erect penises—makes the message clear.
</code></pre>
which gave me immediately a different outlook of ancient Egypt.<p>I apologize if the subject of the paper offends some people here and hence my question.
======
johnnybgoode
I suspect you don't really care about our answers to your title question, and
you just wanted to post the link and a quote from this paper. All of which is
fine with me, by the way!

~~~
yannis
You partly right. I was sure that the mighty filter would have chewed it up
and that I would have done the author and the community a disservice
submitting it with a different title. I believe in not changing article
titles.

~~~
roundsquare
_I was sure that the mighty filter would have chewed it up_

If that happened, you surely could have resubmitted it with a slightly amended
title. Something like FCUK, F U C K or F$#@. I suspect most people here would
have understood.

------
epochwolf
No, the current title lacks any description of the piece in question. (Other
than on containing an offensive word.) I think a title should be able to stand
alone to some degree.

I see the author's intent to stampete through any prudishness surrounding the
term but I think a more description title including the title would be better.

Possiblities.

* Analysis of Fuck

* Fuck: Legalities and Taboos

* Fuck: First Amendment, broadcast regulation, sexual harassment, and education

(This comment has been edited a couple of times to get my idea across, sorry
about that)

~~~
yannis
I had exactly the same idea with you - before I read the article. However, I
changed my mind after reading it and pondering over some of his writings. For
example _fucking brilliant_ will not offend but _fucking idiot_ will and then
that donkey stuff threw me totally out.

------
jackowayed
Sure. It's a paper all about the word "fuck", why not title it _Fuck_? It's
not like someone's going to say, "I was ok with him spending 78 pages talking
about the word "fuck", but titling it _Fuck_ took it too far!" They're either
going to be offended because it's a whole paper about the word "fuck", or
they're not. Might as well let them know what they're getting into as soon as
possible so they don't waste their time.

------
yannis
Click-able link <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=896790>

------
scscsc
Interesting read. I hate however the amount of footnotes. I find the CS style
(references at the end, almost not footnotes) much more readable.

