It doesn't make sense to say that "fcuk" exhibits incorrect syntax: it is a syntactically correct but currently undefined symbol.

As you pointed out, I'm a programmer rather than a linguist. As such, I generally consider an undefined symbol to be a syntax error.

P:\test> perl -wle"prnit 'hello world';"
Unquoted string "prnit" may clash with future reserved word at -e line
+ 1.
String found where operator expected at -e line 1, near "prnit 'hello 
+world'"
        (Do you need to predeclare prnit?)
syntax error at -e line 1, near "prnit 'hello world'"
Execution of -e aborted due to compilation errors.
[download]

Seems I'm not alone.

I agree that context is important, though I think intent is more so. In the TV sitcom "Father Ted", the writer's use the word "Feck" to bypass the censorship rules. When the characters say "Feck off", "You fecker" or "Oh feck!". The intent is clear. Dispite the entymology leading to derivations from old gaelic "to steal" and more recently Dublin slang, the intent and usage in the TV program is clearly a direct substitute for one of the 7 dirty words.

What surprises me, is that the use of such simple substitutions makes the difference between the same dialog being allowed, and the program containing it being able to gain such huge popularity and universal acceptance. It makes no sense to me that the substitution of a single character in "Feck you!", with all other things being the same--context, tone and intent--the dialog is instantly transformed from offensive to acclaimed?

Maybe I'm the only one who's finds this surprising, and frankly, bewildering. But I can assure you that my original post in this thread was made entirely seriously and was not a shot at "cheap humour". When I make such shots, I always include a smiley.