[kepler1]

A company wants to enforce its copyright, etc., fine. That's their right to do so. Although I beg to differ with our copyright laws.

No, what I find objectionable about the NYT games team, such as their spelling bee puzzle, is that they selectively deem certain words not valid responses. Not curse words or words with no redeeming value, but words that are perceived to be derogatory against disadvantaged groups or "offensive". It's like an extension of the hyper sensitive liberal newsroom.

Fine, it's a private organization and their choice. But it reflects in my mind a hijacking of the language by people oversensitized to the point of ridiculousness.

[quink]

> words that are perceived to be derogatory against disadvantaged groups

The _game_ won't accept responses of such a nature? That doesn't sound too bad.

[add-sub-mul-div]

Good thing you're not sensitive.

[jmull]

Oh, come on.

These word games are for casual fun and enjoyment.

It's really not a big deal whether a particular word is included or not in the dictionary for a particular game. For Spelling Bee, the levels appear to be calculated based on the word list, so while it may be a little frustrating that a particular real (albeit off-colored, so to speak) word isn't accepted, rest assured that that doesn't doesn't affect the puzzle's difficulty. So no harm done. IMO, if some particular word removes more fun than it adds, good riddance.

Personally, I was most offended when "ichor" was not accepted, though I'm happy to say their reporting mechanism seemed to work, because it seems to be accepted now at least in the pangram game.