<p>It seems rather odd that this is unblocked considering "lmao" is blocked. If that's a blocked word, then this should be too as it's worse.
</p><p>
A) Support: 19 votes
B) Oppose: 12 votes
C) Neutral: 2 votes
</p>
5,988
pages
ALL POSTS
2
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Alemas2005 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>AmazingPythor wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div> <p>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </p> </div> <p>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... </p><p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.
</p><noscript>
</noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
</p><p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>
<p>They... they are.
</p><p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>
<p>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</p>
</div>
<p>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
</p><p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>
<p>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</p>
</div>
<p>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
</p><p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>
<p>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
</p><p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div> <p>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </p> </div> <p>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... </p><p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
</p><p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>
<p>They... they are.
</p><p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>
<p>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</p>
</div>
<p>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
</p><p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>
<p>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</p>
</div>
<p>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
</p><p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>
<p>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
</p><p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
(Edited by Rapmilo)
0
<div class="quote">Rapmilo wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>AmazingPythor wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </div>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... <p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
<p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>They... they are.
<p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</div>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
<p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</div>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
<p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
<p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>
<p>The reason I continued flamethrower thing is because you seem to think "lmfao" being used by a "troll" (For lack of a better term) will result in a painful, fiery death to all who are near it.
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>AmazingPythor wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </div>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... <p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
<p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>They... they are.
<p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</div>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
<p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</div>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
<p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
<p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>
<p>The reason I continued flamethrower thing is because you seem to think "lmfao" being used by a "troll" (For lack of a better term) will result in a painful, fiery death to all who are near it.
</p>
(Edited by Brick425)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Alemas2005 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>AmazingPythor wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div> <p>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </p> </div> <p>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... </p><p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
</p><p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>
<p>They... they are.
</p><p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>
<p>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</p>
</div>
<p>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
</p><p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>
<p>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</p>
</div>
<p>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
</p><p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>
<p>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
</p><p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>
<p>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.
</p>
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div> <p>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </p> </div> <p>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... </p><p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
</p><p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>
<p>They... they are.
</p><p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>
<p>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</p>
</div>
<p>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
</p><p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>
<p>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</p>
</div>
<p>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
</p><p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>
<p>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
</p><p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>
<p>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.
</p>
(Edited by Keplers)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Keplers wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Rapmilo wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>Alemas2005 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">
<p>AmazingPythor wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div> <p>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </p> </div> <p>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... </p><p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
</p><p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>
<p>They... they are.
</p><p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>
<p>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</p>
</div>
<p>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
</p><p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>
<p>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</p>
</div>
<p>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
</p><p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>
<p>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
</p><p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>
<p>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.
</p>
</div>
<p>If that is the case "lmfao", <i>should</i> be banned, as it contains two blocked words.
</p>
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div> <p>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </p> </div> <p>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... </p><p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>
<p>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
</p><p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>
<p>They... they are.
</p><p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>
<p>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</p>
</div>
<p>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
</p><p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>
<p>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</p>
</div>
<p>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
</p><p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>
<p>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
</p><p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>
<p>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.
</p>
</div>
<p>If that is the case "lmfao", <i>should</i> be banned, as it contains two blocked words.
</p>
(Edited by Rapmilo)
0
<div class="quote">Rapmilo wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>AmazingPythor wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </div>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... <p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
<p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>They... they are.
<p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</div>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
<p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</div>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
<p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
<p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.
</div>If that is the case "lmfao", <i>should</i> be banned, as it contains two blocked words.
</div>
<p>IT IS BANNED. It just isn't blocked, meaning it won't be a red X.
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>AmazingPythor wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </div>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... <p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
<p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>They... they are.
<p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</div>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
<p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</div>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
<p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
<p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.
</div>If that is the case "lmfao", <i>should</i> be banned, as it contains two blocked words.
</div>
<p>IT IS BANNED. It just isn't blocked, meaning it won't be a red X.
</p>
(Edited by Brick425)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Brick425 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Rapmilo wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>AmazingPythor wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </div>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... <p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
<p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>They... they are.
<p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</div>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
<p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</div>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
<p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
<p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.
</div>If that is the case "lmfao", <i>should</i> be banned, as it contains two blocked words.
</div>
<p>IT IS BANNED. It just isn't blocked, meaning it won't be a red X.
</p>
</div>
<p>Aaaaah...I see now.
</p><p>Sorry I'm fairly ignorant about this wiki. And by fairly I mean extremely ignorant.
</p><p>Can we end this chain now?
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p> <div class="quote"> <p>AmazingPythor wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion. </div>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... <p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
<p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>They... they are.
<p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.
</div>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
<p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.
</div>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
<p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
<p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.
</div>If that is the case "lmfao", <i>should</i> be banned, as it contains two blocked words.
</div>
<p>IT IS BANNED. It just isn't blocked, meaning it won't be a red X.
</p>
</div>
<p>Aaaaah...I see now.
</p><p>Sorry I'm fairly ignorant about this wiki. And by fairly I mean extremely ignorant.
</p><p>Can we end this chain now?
</p>
(Edited by Rapmilo)
1
<div class="quote">Rapmilo wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Rapmilo wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>AmazingPythor wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion.</div>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... <p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
<p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>They... they are.
<p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.</div>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
<p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.</div>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
<p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
<p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.</div>If that is the case "lmfao", <i>should</i> be banned, as it contains two blocked words.</div>IT IS BANNED. It just isn't blocked, meaning it won't be a red X.
</div>Aaaaah...I see now.
<p>Sorry I'm fairly ignorant about this wiki. And by fairly I mean extremely ignorant.
</p><p>Can we end this chain now?
</p>
</div>
<p>If you're ignorant about a subject, don't debate it.
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Rapmilo wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>AmazingPythor wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion.</div>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... <p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
<p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>They... they are.
<p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.</div>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
<p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.</div>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
<p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
<p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.</div>If that is the case "lmfao", <i>should</i> be banned, as it contains two blocked words.</div>IT IS BANNED. It just isn't blocked, meaning it won't be a red X.
</div>Aaaaah...I see now.
<p>Sorry I'm fairly ignorant about this wiki. And by fairly I mean extremely ignorant.
</p><p>Can we end this chain now?
</p>
</div>
<p>If you're ignorant about a subject, don't debate it.
</p>
(Edited by Brick425)
0
<div class="quote">
<p>Brick425 wrote:
</p>
<div class="quote">Rapmilo wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Rapmilo wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>AmazingPythor wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion.</div>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... <p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
<p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>They... they are.
<p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.</div>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
<p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.</div>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
<p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
<p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.</div>If that is the case "lmfao", <i>should</i> be banned, as it contains two blocked words.</div>IT IS BANNED. It just isn't blocked, meaning it won't be a red X.
</div>Aaaaah...I see now.
<p>Sorry I'm fairly ignorant about this wiki. And by fairly I mean extremely ignorant.
</p><p>Can we end this chain now?
</p>
</div>
<p>If you're ignorant about a subject, don't debate it.
</p>
</div>
<p>Fair enough. I assumed block meant the same thing as ban.
</p>
<div class="quote"> <p>Brick425 wrote: </p> <div class="quote">Rapmilo wrote:
<div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Keplers wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Rapmilo wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>Alemas2005 wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote"> <p>AmazingPythor wrote: </p><p>
</p> <div class="quote">Slicer Vorzakh wrote:
for the consistency people, how about we keep this unblocked and unblock lmao?</div>If "wtf" and "lmao" were unblocked I would certainly have a different opinion.</div>But they both contain swears which are currently blocked... <p>So we would need unblock votes for the f-word and a-word.
</p><noscript></noscript>
<p>Which already failed fairly recently. </p><noscript></noscript>
</div>That's what I don't get. Why are abbreviations treated differently then the words they represent?
<p>If the a-word is blocked all derivatives and abbreviations of that word should be blocked as well. This would make the policy much simpler and overall more consistent.
</p>
</div>They... they are.
<p>Before Knight went around intentionally looking for a heinous word that was unblocked so that he could put up a CV and pat himself on the back.
</p><p>The reason this word remained unblocked was because nobody, in the history of this wiki, <i>used it</i>. There was no need to block a word that never saw use.
</p>
</div>Well now that people know that this word is not blocked, we should block it so nobody uses it.</div>Nobody has or will. Fun fact: flamethrowers are completely unregulated in the United States with the exception of California. Why have we not banned flamethrowers, which can cause immense collateral damage and murder far more people than a semi-automatic firearm?
<p>Because flamethrower homicides have never happened and probably never will.
</p>
</div>Flamethrower homicides <i>have</i> happened just not in the U.S. Besides, it's only a matter of time before a crazy man (or woman) with a flamethrower goes up and kills everyone, before all other 49 states repeal private flamethrower ownership.</div>It's hard to repeal something that was never law.
<p>And, haha, you still prove my point. It will only be banned after it is used. So far, no dice.
</p>
</div>The point is that if we have the ability to block a word that may or may not be used, then we may as well take that course of action rather than ignoring a loophole in a rule that already exists until it is eventually exploited.
<p>Get it?
</p><p>No, of course not. Because your argument relies on the premise that "lmfao" has never been used before and therefore should not be blocked.
</p><p>If that is the case, then I have this question for you: Why wait until "lmfao" is exploited to block it, when we may as well block it right now?
</p><p>There is no forseeable advantage in keeping it unblocked.
</p>
</div>Swearing is still banned -- including using acronyms that have not been banned that contain a blocked word. That was covered in the rules, and there is no loophole. All we are doing here is taking unnecessary action and wasting time.</div>If that is the case "lmfao", <i>should</i> be banned, as it contains two blocked words.</div>IT IS BANNED. It just isn't blocked, meaning it won't be a red X.
</div>Aaaaah...I see now.
<p>Sorry I'm fairly ignorant about this wiki. And by fairly I mean extremely ignorant.
</p><p>Can we end this chain now?
</p>
</div>
<p>If you're ignorant about a subject, don't debate it.
</p>
</div>
<p>Fair enough. I assumed block meant the same thing as ban.
</p>
(Edited by Rapmilo)
A
(Edited by Romaniandude12)
0
<p>Rap, Brick, I suggest you take the whole quote chain into the brand new Argument Clinic if you want to continue the discussion. </p><noscript>
</noscript>
</p><noscript></noscript>
(Edited by Alemas2005)