Why is it so hard to get a straight answer to a direct question around here?
I don’t know; I suspect there is fear that if they give a straight answer it will be used against them in the future, but since moving the goalposts has become such a popular hobby, I wouldn’t think it would really matter.
Because you keep changing the question?
Hell with what we call each other, when can we start behaving like cunts in the Pit again?
Well that’s not fair. Is asking two questions in the same post really changing the question? You know it isn’t. It’s the second question, or series of questions, that were evaded. You know, the ones Marley responded to? Said response which I quoted? How is that changing the question? Where did I claim a question was unanswered by changing the question? Precisely, please.
Contrapuntal, I not only answered your question, I linked directly to the rule itself, which answered your question six months before you asked it. That’s been up there since the beginning of March. Enforcement of these rules in the Pit has not changed a jot since they were posted. You are not allowed to call another poster a cunt, directly or indirectly. There’s no rule against saying it about people who don’t post here or using it in the anatomical sense, although if you do it excessively or in a way that looks like a veiled insult you’ll probably be told to knock it off.
There you go. A straight answer to a direct question. Please show me where you gave that answer previously.
But it’s not the sentiment from the heart that alone has to be considered, it’s the effect on those who hear it or read it and “gosh darn it” and “God damn it” do not have identical impact. And the word cunt, for whatever reason, has probably the greatest impact of any of the Anglo-Saxon expletives and the greatest power to offend.
Post 20, where I linked to the rule and quoted part of it. Unless you’re telling me you didn’t understand that “[the words] should not be directed at other posters” means “don’t call other posters these words.”
What I don’t understand is your claim that your link and subsequent response says anything about anatomical references, or persons who are not posters. Can you please show me where, in post 20, are the exact words you used to refer to those questions?
But I *like *calling people cunts.
You’ll have to settle for saying that they have a certain country air about them. Until that becomes against the rules as well.
You make an excellent point. I’ll have to reconsider my position.
Maybe we’re talking past each other here, but I thought it was clear the exception proves the rule: the sticky, and my post, both specifically say you can’t direct the insults at other posters. If you were not allowed to use it anatomically or about non-posters, the sticky (and my post repeating the content of the sticky) would say so.
I don’t think this is really that complicated. 
My post was not in Aramaic.
Luckily for the OP, the Internet has no shortages of places where uncouthness is not only permitted, but welcomed. 
This thread is becoming a little silly, and I hesitate to add to it. But here goes:
No need to add to the rules exists along those lines.
If I were to use your ploy and complain that anyone here has “a certain country air” about them, I would no doubt have the rule quoted to me by a mod, be told sharply to cease and desist from playing games with the rules, and, depending on the circumstances, be told that I was being hit with an official warning. Or worse.
ETA:
But as someone who had fought against anything even smacking as “censorship” while in college (I even “complied” with a new college paper clean-up directive as copy editor by substituting the character string $[-]!+ [substitute a dagger mark for the plus sign] for the original expletive.) I am still somewhat in sympathy with you.
It seems a bit unpleasant to conflate strong language and racist language as you’re doing here; I don’t see any sign that Angry Lurker would like “nigger” to be on the acceptable list, and phrasing your disagrement the way you have done here inadvertently gives the impression that (he? she?) would.
Too, it seems like something of an unnecessary link, and cynically it seems to me designed in order to attempt to grant strong language the emotional weight of racist language. By listing alternate things that will remain banned, apparently unprovoked, seems to seek to put strong language on an equal footing with racism, threats of violence, illegality, spam, and pornographic links. I mean, I can understand listing other offences in order to get across precisely how important - and how unlikely to be overturned - this rule is to the moderating team, but I think you may have accidentally gone a bit too far there.
I wouldn’t play this game unless I thought Gfactor had the reading comprehension of a small rock. 
Just call folks snuggly puppy. They’ll know what you mean.
Can we describe people as “cunty,” or describe them as behaving “cuntily”?