No. Did you read the sticky?
Haha, yes, I just thought it was funny to ask again. And the word “cunty” makes me laugh. But apparently not.
I guess it’s true, then. You cunt always get what you want.
TWAT you say?! 
SOMEONE SET US Up THE BOOB!
Just as a matter of curiosity, who has requested that the bans on racism, threats of violence, illegal acts, spam, or links to pornography be rescinded? Where in the OP is there a request to be allowed to call other Dopers “nigger”? Or are you simply using false equivalence in order to support an otherwise arbitrary decision?
Personally, i think the rule against using “cunt” was, an is, retarded. But i’d actually prefer that they bring back the ability to say “Go fuck yourself” and its associated variants. Removing those was ridiculous pandering to fuck-knows-what.
If you say tit a groin, maybe I can finger it out.
Man speaks the truth.
But if you try real hard, clam you get what you need?
It was ridiculous pandering to the astounding concept that people can have polite discussions, and that even when flaming or insulting each other, the insults need not sink below a certain level of civility.
The Straight Dope adheres to that ridiculous concept. There are, as noted before, lots of places on the internet where “Go fuck yourself” is normal discourse. I suggest anyone who has the overwhelming, uncontrollable urge to yell “Fuck you” at other posters should go to those sites to relieve that urge, and then come back here after flushing and washing their hands.
But if you really believed in the model you’re suggesting here, why not ban insults altogether?
We can still call someone a fucking asshole, a raging douchebag, and a syphilis-infested whore without running afoul of the rules. My point was not simply that those insults should be allowed, but that their banning, in the context of all the other insults that are still allowed, is completely pointless, and nothing more than for-show busywork. It’s like the TSA screeners who made a mother drink from a bottle of her own breastmilk, or who confiscated nail-clippers; it did nothing to enhance security, and had no effect except to annoy people and make the rulemakers appear stupid and capricious.
ETA: I realize that this battle is over. I never expected the OP’s request to be granted, and i don’t really care that much either. But your post hoc rationalizations will never convince me that the change was a good idea, or that it made this place any more civil.
@ C K Dexter Haven
You wrote:
And:
If I may, in all humility, contradict you, please. Your “certain level of civility” goal is not (and cannot) be met with your current strategy. Your elimination criteria are too arbitrary.
In maintaining your certain level of civility, you are allowing one poster to tell another to go feltch a constipated goat.
That makes no sense, if you don’t mind it being pointed out.
Like mhendo, however, I’m expecting no change. Please pardon my frankness, but I’m only making you aware of the fact that a thinking person simply cannot take your reasoning seriously.
Really, you can use no otherwise strong language at all and still offend someone in much greater terms than with a simple “cunt”. Hell, you can use such words and still be civil, much like that. The idea that banning strong language will mean greater civility is simply silly. Posters will just act uncivilly in different, acceptable ways. I know I do.
Beyond that, I find it pretty funny that the two messages Dex has posted in this thread both mention this idea that apparently people just can’t go without using whatever language in their posts, and yet he apparently isn’t able to forego sarcasm and hyperbole. So far as lack of control goes, i’m not so sure he has the high ground on this particular point.
I agree, it is a ridiculous concept, and the pandering is ridiculous.
For some of us, the difference between calling someone a “fucking asshole” and saying to them directly, “fuck you!” is quite apparent. And I agree: if you cannot engage in discourse without the latter, you should go elsewhere. Of course, if it were me, I’d preclude the former, too, but then if it were me, there would be no Pit. But I can certainly understand the difference between the two. And so should most rational people.
I don’t know where I’ve seen more weaseling. Just fucking show it to me, if it’s that easy. Or admit that you cannot be bothered to answer a direct question with a straight answer.
Wonderful. Shakespeare banned from the Pit.
I’ve answered you directly twice and at this point I don’t know what you are confused about. Would it help you if I posted the link some more?
No, because I am asking for *your *words, not the words of someone else. I have no idea why this concept is so difficult for you. Where did YOU say it? Understand?
That would still be post 20, where I quoted the rule itself to answer your questions.