From the article: "What’s odd is this also contradicts the developers’ own claims that the rejection letter they received cited only examples of conventional swear words as objectionable."
Either the developers lied, or their App Store reviewer misled them, or Schiller was not telling the truth when he said that the problem was something other than "conventional swear words".
Anyway. Whatever "unconventional" obscenities it may contain: it's a dictionary. Dictionaries (apart from weirdly bowdlerized ones) contain naughty words, and words that describe Very Nasty Things. A user is only likely to see those if they deliberately go looking for them. It doesn't seem difficult to me to understand why some people might find it odd for those words to require the thing to be given a 17+ rating; real dictionaries (which probably offer more opportunities for people to find "cocksucker" or "genocide" -- and, incidentally, isn't it bizarre to worry more about children finding the former than the latter? -- by accident than electronic ones like Ninjawords) don't generally carry age warnings or restrictions.
Either the developers lied, or their App Store reviewer misled them, or Schiller was not telling the truth when he said that the problem was something other than "conventional swear words".
Anyway. Whatever "unconventional" obscenities it may contain: it's a dictionary. Dictionaries (apart from weirdly bowdlerized ones) contain naughty words, and words that describe Very Nasty Things. A user is only likely to see those if they deliberately go looking for them. It doesn't seem difficult to me to understand why some people might find it odd for those words to require the thing to be given a 17+ rating; real dictionaries (which probably offer more opportunities for people to find "cocksucker" or "genocide" -- and, incidentally, isn't it bizarre to worry more about children finding the former than the latter? -- by accident than electronic ones like Ninjawords) don't generally carry age warnings or restrictions.