bibliophage, what's the problem with this?

[Airman_Doors_USAF]

This is not a run of the mill Mod-bashing thread, so don’t jump all over me for it. I’m merely curious.

In this thread, you told Doghouse Reilly not to make a comment that I didn’t find to be particularly offensive. Inane, pointless, maybe, but not really offensive.

If it’s not too much trouble, could you tell me what is and is not acceptable in GO? I’m pretty sure I know the answer, but a clarification couldn’t hurt.

Thanks, and sorry for the inconvenience.

[Duck_Duck_Goose]

Well, the OP asked a fairly simple, straightforward question:

The word “cruise” by way of the Dutch
“kruis” comes from the root crux: Latin for cross (in the sense of traverse).
In other languages that I know, the words for cross all look or sound sort of like “Cruise”, cruz, kreuz, croce and so on.

I don’t think Arabic, Farsi, or Pashto would use Latin roots, but what are their words for “cross” or “crusader”? I mean wouldn’t it be stupid if we are lobbing what sounds to their ears as “Cross Missiles” at Islamic fundamentalists.

I know it sounds far fetched. But if “crusader” is a problematic term, would “cruise” be?

And DR responded with this:

No, what would be stupid would be to slam a passenger jet into two of their skyscrapers while shrieking “God is great”. It would be stupid to stab an innocent flight attendant in the throat with a box cutter. It would be stupid to think that murdering 6,000 civilians in cold blood will get us tickets to a paradise where nubile young virgins wait on us hand and foot. All these things are stupid. As for the tender sensitivities of the radical Muslims responsible for this, I wouldn’t be too perturbed if allied forces were painting thick coats of pork fat on their cruise missiles before firing.

The simplest answer to your question, Airman, would be that “GQ is a place for answering questions with simple, scientific answers”, not for slavering rhetoric. We have a forum for slavering rhetoric–the Pit.

[Mangetout]

…painting thick coats of pork fat on their cruise missiles before firing…

I don’t think that would be a good idea - it might affect their aerodynamic properties.

[Astroboy14]

I gotta agree with DDG here. Doghouse Reilly’s response was not appropriate to GQ, in my opinion…

But, folks, let’s all keep a bit of perspective here, please! We (and I DO mean “we”! If the SDMB isn’t the type of community that western civilization is all about, then I don’t know western civilization IS all about!) are at war right now, and emotions are running high in all areas.

Please think and take a deep breath before you post, or respond to a post involving the current situation.

Don’t let them tear us apart! Either here or IRL!

[Jonathan_Chance]

*Originally posted by Duck Duck Goose *
**We have a forum for slavering rhetoric–the Pit. **

I thought slavering rhetoric was the province of Great Debates.

Man, I could have sworn.

[Czarcasm]

Don’t feel too bad. I thought it was a former Soviet Republic.

[White_Lightning]

*Originally posted by **Mangetout ***

…painting thick coats of pork fat on their cruise missiles before firing…

I don’t think that would be a good idea - it might affect their aerodynamic properties.

Yeah, I don’t think you guys are taking this enough into account. It’s like my grandpappy used to say, you can never underestimate the aerodynamic interference of a thick coating of pork fat on a cruise missile. Ya know?

[bibliophage]

I don’t necessarily disagree with what Doghouse Reilly said, but I do have a problem with where he chose to say it. It was appropriate to the Pit, not to GQ.