Readers often contact me when they see something they think is inappropriate for a general-interest paper. One such example came in a commentary column by Lisa Gutierrez over the weekend.
Writing on perceptions about Kansans, Gutierrez quoted a line from comedy writer Will Averill: "**** you, I’m from Kansas!" (Averill doesn't use the four asterisks on the Facebook page itself, but you'll see he uses one. Either way, you get the point.)
"This is beneath The Kansas City Star," said a caller this morning, telling me it's something he would expect to see in an alternative-media publication instead.
And sure, I understand that point of view. It's been my experience that readers don't mind any kind of language if it's used in a context they find appropriate. But there's little way for anyone to mistake the meaning here, and even though it's a quotation from someone else, it's fair to say this usage would be egregious and unnecessary to many people.

****
Sorry, it took me a while to figure out why a censored profanity would elicit the same response as if the Star had printed the word. Two points: (1) there are several four-letter words that qualify as profanities, and in context it could be the d-word as well as the f-word (probably not); (2) was the phrase really worth quoting? I'm not seeing anything worthy of Bartlett's here (sorry, showing my age). Good writing does not draw attention to itself, but advances the story.