So, there are no lines in the sand? Anything goes? Acronyms and alternative words are just that...expressing the thought without typing the specific words.
Except that in this case it's not an acronym, it's an
initialism. There's a difference.
You can wiggle all you want...but you crossed the line by typing the word.
I use a lot of colorful language...but I'm careful not to type the actual words.
And do you really think that using the Olde English spelling of the word
‘bullshyte’ is in some way less offensive than typing the modern version ? The gist and connotation are clear, the modern day version no different, and the tenor is the same. There’s zero ambiguity. If, by your reasoning, BFD is acceptable, then typing the initialism 'ef-u' would be equally acceptable. It isn't. None of them are.
Short answer: ban all offensive terminology, whether it be the written word or a thinly disguised provocation - spare me the 'euphemistic deformation' bit, and let's leave out both the lexical semantics and the sanctimonious babble.
(*)
The origins of the f-word are in Anglo Saxon Old German and it was commonly used in Chaucerian times, and by Chaucer himself, but it later became so offensive than even though Shakespeare hinted at it he never used the word explicitly. ‘BS' is a very modern term, probably less than 100 years old. It’s related to ‘bull’, which was used as slang for ‘nonsense', in the 17th century. The ‘shit’ was added later, probably during World War I.
In any event, the meaning of both words are unambiguous no matter what ‘trompe-l’oeil’ facade you try to disguise them with.