In article >,
says...
>
> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 22:17:23 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
> >In article >, ost
> >says...
> >>
> >> On Mon, 1 Jul 2013 18:33:23 +0100, Janet wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article >, ost
> >> > says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Mon, 01 Jul 2013 07:35:03 -0700, sf wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> I had to hear about this from a real live person!
> >> >>> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-U-S-show.html
> >> >>
> >> >> I give up. What is a lazy "t*****"?
> >> >
> >> > tosser.
> >>
> >> Ugh. I knew it had to be a UK'ism of some sort but I just couldn't
> >> place the word. Thanks :-)
> >>
> >> Is it that derogatory that it needs to be asterisked?
> >
> > I'm surprised it was. Calling someone a tosser is the equivalent of an
> >American calling someone a jerk and I've never seen jerk asterisked
> >either.
>
> Tosser actually means ******, whether that needs censoring with
> asterisks I'm not so sure.

Although the definition of the two terms is the same the colloquial
impact isn't; in UK tosser is regarded as a milder slang than ******.
Jerk means the same, of course.

Janet UK