When it comes to foul language, the really bad kind, we have to figure out whether it belongs in a family newspaper and if it does, how it should be presented to readers.

One of our longtime copy editors, who is a stickler for precision in stories, raised the point after reading our recent pieces on Duane "Dog" Chapman. The bounty hunter's son tape-recorded his father saying, "I'm not taking a chance on some n-----" to describe the son's black girlfriend.

A few days before the Chapman story, we had another about someone leaving a threatening message for Senate Majority Leader Gary Hooser regarding the Superferry protest by saying, "Hope you watch your back, brah! You (expletive)." And earlier this year, we had the Waikele Shopping Center story and the driver who called another driver a "f------ haole."

The copy editor wrote, "My concern is, in this day and age, is this 'Wheel of Fortune' approach appropriate? Really, who doesn't know what these words are when we offer them up as such? Who are we shielding? What purpose are we serving? Isn't 'n-----' as bad as repeating the epithet itself?"

He prefers using the word "expletive" in parentheses, which he suspects readers will decode anyway.

"I just don't like the idea of us spotting them letters," he said.

I posed the question to several senior editors and got some interesting responses.

David Putnam, our deputy news editor, said he would use "expletive" in most cases, but he realizes the reader has to go through a mental exercise to figure out exactly what has been said.

On the Hooser story, we originally had the threatening phone call quote written by the reporter as "f-----" but Putnam asked me if he could change it to "expletive," saying it didn't add much to the meaning because no matter what the offensive word, it pretty much conveyed the same feeling. I agreed. However, the reporter who wrote it thought the original version reflected the depth and intensity of the caller's feelings.

Marsha McFadden, the managing editor for content, agreed with the copy editor, saying to use the dashes is about the same as spelling out the word.

"Even though I agreed with the reporter on the Hooser story, in retrospect saying it conveys depth of feelings is a weak argument," she said. "It doesn't. Yes, it's more graphic, but you don't lose anything by using 'expletive.' " In the Chapman story, McFadden said it would have sufficed to use "expletive" since we already mentioned in the lead of the story that Chapman had used the "n-word."

24/7 News Editor Steve Petranik has a different opinion and to me, the most compelling of all the arguments.

"I think it is essential that we provide the first letter," he said. "Yes, then it becomes obvious what the word is. But isn't that the point: we are providing information and the curse words often ARE the story or an important part of the story. While reporting the news, we also protect the sensibilities of those who are offended by coarse language. All compromises are imperfect, but this is the best possible compromise."

Giving out the first letter and then using dashes makes it obvious to readers what is being said. Besides, how does the reader know what we consider an offensive term? What if the caller to Hooser had said, "You suck" and we considered that word an expletive? As much as I don't like seeing that word in the newspaper, it has become standard fare in our lexicon. Still, it is not an obscenity.

As a reader, I want to know what was said, as much as it may offend me.