Four-letter

Another recent example of mistaking means as the aim is our honorably council's decision to forbid doctors to use four-letter words to their patients.

I would not elaborate my feeling to the decision. (You would find a wonderful collection of feelings and emotions in the Facebook.) Nonetheless, our friends living outside the solar system does make a crucial mistake and their decision is against a basic principle of legislation:

One should not put up a law because it is morally right or wrong; we should only put up one that could be judged by objective means.

Violation of this principle would result in a law that brings much litigation argument but does not protect the right of any.

You see the point here ? There is no objective definition of a colourful spicy vigorous explicit offending intimidating language; an incriminating phrase to one may be merely an innocent adverb and local slang to another.

(We don't need to extrapolate very far to find an example. Not too long ago, a certain Mr. Tsang said gout up in a formal meeting of the legislative council. You may consider that not appropriate, but many of our senior officials would interpret that as dogs' barking, quarreling, or possibly some problem related to uric acid.)

After all, we do not need a hot and spicy wording to convey our meaning.

For example: They are King Nikochan.