Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
Sign in to follow this  
Charles Anthony

Insults and proper names

Recommended Posts

The forum rules have been updated to discourage the use of subtle third-party insults. Please take note of the following:

INSULTS

Avoid using abbreviated terms such as "Cons" or "Libs" that may be offensive to the group to which they refer. Full names are best and official abbreviations are acceptable.

Do not use diminutives or character substitutions in proper names that are not recognized by the original person to whom the reference is being made. For example, Prime Minister Stephen Harper does not identify himself as Stevie therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Stevie. Likewise, Paul Martin does not identify himself as Mr. Dithers, therefore, it is unacceptable to identify him as Mr. Dithers.

In the discussion forums, such infractions will be considered as third-party insults.
forum rules

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The forum rules have been updated to discourage the use of subtle third-party insults. Please take note of the following:

forum rules

Anthony. given that your signature includes the following line: "Le canadien anglais est poli mais malhonnête.", I look forward to your suspension.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are we really outawing colloquial language and expressions on an internet discussion forum? :blink:

What's next? Peer review of each post before it is submitted for publication?

FTA

oops! I mean FTA Lawyer, Esq., BA, LLB

Sorry, old habits die hard.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are we really outawing colloquial language and expressions on an internet discussion forum? :blink:
Occasionally, the colloquialisms are purely used to inflame discussions and the intention is to avoid such incidents. That is all.

Higgly,

My posting privileges have been suspended last year already in the discussion forums, eh?

That quotation in my signature which YOU present as an insult was very well defended and explained, in my opinion. It is not presented as a cheap, drive-by insult nor as a joke. It is a profound statement of opinion on Canadian culture which transcends politics and I honestly believe it is accurate.

Edited by Charles Anthony
completed with "eh?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest American Woman

I, for one, am supportive of the rule. To add to the list, I get tired of reading about "Billary," "Osama Obama," "Lieberals," "Repugs," etc. I don't think terms like that do anything to "promote intelligent discussion," which is the purpose of this board. And I appreciate that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I, for one, am supportive of the rule. To add to the list, I get tired of reading about "Billary," "Osama Obama," .....

I imagine calling him B. Hussien Obama will be okay.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll try my best to abide the rules but I honestly think they are stupid, and unnecessary. The more rules and censorship you add the more dull and boring this forum will become. I like watching the die hard partisans freak out when something offends them, it adds comic relief. I mean is it really all that insulting to a conservative to be refered to as a con, a liberal as a lib or us NDPers as dippers? I guess I am just not easily offended. It just all seems rather silly to make a big deal about short forms of party names. Even calling steven harper stevie, or paul martin paulie, is a pretty far cry from insulting in my opinion. I guess a year from now the board can just write our replies for us and email our pre-approved statements to us for posting at our liesure. What I'd like to know is what kind of whiney little pussies are complaining enough to cause a rule change? Whose bitching has caused this restriction on our freedom of expression? I'll bet whoever it is they are to afraid to identify their cowardly self in this thread.

If this is just the forum owners decision I wish they would reconsider limiting our free speech this way.

Sticks and stones and all that crap ya know?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll try my best to abide the rules but I honestly think they are stupid, and unnecessary. The more rules and censorship you add the more dull and boring this forum will become. I like watching the die hard partisans freak out when something offends them, it adds comic relief. I mean is it really all that insulting to a conservative to be refered to as a con, a liberal as a lib or us NDPers as dippers? I guess I am just not easily offended. It just all seems rather silly to make a big deal about short forms of party names. Even calling steven harper stevie, or paul martin paulie, is a pretty far cry from insulting in my opinion. I guess a year from now the board can just write our replies for us and email our pre-approved statements to us for posting at our liesure. What I'd like to know is what kind of whiney little pussies are complaining enough to cause a rule change? Whose bitching has caused this restriction on our freedom of expression? I'll bet whoever it is they are to afraid to identify their cowardly self in this thread.

If this is just the forum owners decision I wish they would reconsider limiting our free speech this way.

Sticks and stones and all that crap ya know?

From what I have seen the ones that whine the loudest are some of the ones that originally got caught taking it too far.

I get a kick out of seeing a few certain posters quote rules that they themselves broke with regularity before they went overboard and had to be talked to. You all know who you are. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What would be the reason for this rule? Lawsuits or something? If there is no fear of legal reprisals, where is the harm? I hope I can still refer to the Prime Minister as just plain old Harper. :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I had a choice, and I dont, the names, stevie , paulie libs cons would be cool.

However the smiley face , laughing face, roll the eyes icon and all the others would be sent packing.I say better to mock the leader (stevie-paulie-dithers) than mock the poster, which is exactly why they are put in there.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
However the smiley face , laughing face, roll the eyes icon and all the others would be sent packing.I say better to mock the leader (stevie-paulie-dithers) than mock the poster, which is exactly why they are put in there.

:lol::lol:

No They're not :angry:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'll try my best to abide the rules but I honestly think they are stupid, and unnecessary. The more rules and censorship you add the more dull and boring this forum will become. I like watching the die hard partisans freak out when something offends them, it adds comic relief. I mean is it really all that insulting to a conservative to be refered to as a con, a liberal as a lib or us NDPers as dippers? I guess I am just not easily offended. It just all seems rather silly to make a big deal about short forms of party names. Even calling steven harper stevie, or paul martin paulie, is a pretty far cry from insulting in my opinion. I guess a year from now the board can just write our replies for us and email our pre-approved statements to us for posting at our liesure. What I'd like to know is what kind of whiney little pussies are complaining enough to cause a rule change? Whose bitching has caused this restriction on our freedom of expression? I'll bet whoever it is they are to afraid to identify their cowardly self in this thread.

If this is just the forum owners decision I wish they would reconsider limiting our free speech this way.

Sticks and stones and all that crap ya know?

What he said... ;)

And quite well I might add... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with it, if there isn't some control the forum wouldn't be worth reading.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree with it, if there isn't some control the forum wouldn't be worth reading.

Me too. I remember one guy even had some bizarre signature line about Liberals causing discomfort in one's shorts. I didn't have a clue what he meant, but it was probably supposed to be insulting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me too. I remember one guy even had some bizarre signature line about Liberals causing discomfort in one's shorts. I didn't have a clue what he meant, but it was probably supposed to be insulting.

LOL - good one! ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Me too. I remember one guy even had some bizarre signature line about Liberals causing discomfort in one's shorts. I didn't have a clue what he meant, but it was probably supposed to be insulting.

LOL - sure you know what it means, it's hardly a third party insult... Grits is just an old party name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL - sure you know what it means, it's hardly a third party insult... Grits is just an old party name.

I know that. But what does that have to do with people's shorts? I honestly don't get it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that. But what does that have to do with people's shorts? I honestly don't get it.

Did you catch the use of the name Stephanie Dion?

Interesting indeed, in light of the posters position here

scriblett:

I agree with it, if there isn't some control the forum wouldn't be worth reading.

also of note the sam eposter claims it is the "left" that censors and yet here she is advocating for censorship.

t :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I know that. But what does that have to do with people's shorts? I honestly don't get it.

Honest? Grits are/is also a food, so too many grits could affect your ahem digestive system :)- hence the necessity to adjust your shorts... heck guess you had to be there LOL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, okay. Now I get it. heh.

Speaking of signature lines, I don't quite follow what meaning you are trying to convey. Since you are generally a liberal, I don't see you as being a fan of someone like Merle. Is the line used as humour?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Speaking of signature lines, I don't quite follow what meaning you are trying to convey. Since you are generally a liberal, I don't see you as being a fan of someone like Merle. Is the line used as humour?

The idea of liberty transcends liberal and conservative ideology. Merle, like me, feels that prohibition prohibits true freedom. And though I'm generally a liberal, I'm more interested in what makes us same than what makes us different.

And "Mama Tried" is a damn good song.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×