This is really infuriating. You simply refuse to answer a direct question. The quoted rule says fuck-all about my question. We’ve been over this. You actually did answer it, in post 26, but when asked to show where you answered it previously, as you claimed, all you can do is link to a sticky that does not address it at all. Just admit that your claim is bullshit and move on, why don’t you?
Here’s what I’m saying, Contrapuntal. Stop me when it starts to sound crazy: the rule prohibits calling other posters “cunt,” among other words. If the rule also barred the use of those words against non-posters, or barred their anatomical use, the rule would say so, because otherwise nobody would know those things were against the rules, and if nobody knows it’s against the rules, it defeats the purpose of having a rule against it in the first place.
All of this was explained in post 20, using a few words by me and two quotes from the rule itself. You have failed to comprehend it to this point but I’m hoping this post will settle it.
The irony overwhelms me.
That presumes that the rule is successful in that regard, though. I’m not saying it isn’t, but your argument here would seem to assume that there could be no possible questions or clarifications on the rule. The rule needs to be understood, therefore it is written in such a way as to be understood doesn’t mean that it can’t fail at that task.
I didn’t say there are no possible questions. I said the rule does answer the questions that I addressed. And it does. I then explained how it does so: the exception proves the rule. If you’re driving down the street and see a sign that reads “Speed Limit: 55 mph,” it’s safe to assume you are allowed to drive at speeds lower than 55. The rule works the same way: it says you can’t direct certain insults at other posters, which means you can direct other insults at other posters, and can use those words if they are not directed at other posters.
As far as the language of the rule being comprehensible, I don’t think it fails. Or at least doesn’t fail to the extent suggested by this thread. 
Cheese-n-rice!
As far as cunt is concerned, what if it were spelled the way the Brits say it? It almost sounds friendly. “Ya bloody koont, Kiss me fanny”.
I understand ther’s a slight difference, but i really don’t see any substantial differencce in the level of offensiveness. To be quite honest, if you asked me to grade being called a “fucking asshole,” and being told “fuck you,” on a scale of how offensive i found each one, i would really have trouble deciding which one to place higher.
Is it possible that these rules came about not because of the Powers That Be’s desire to gentrify the Pit, but because Google will start putting all kind of inappropriate ads in the site?
Just saying.
That was kind of my point. Your argument wasn’t that it was only the case for this example, but of the rule in general; it wasn’t an argument specific to the question, but a general argument which applies to that question among others.
I think it’s only safe to assume that because there’s a general understanding of speed limits, and of the purpose behind them. On the boards, the purpose behind this rule, as I understand it, is to improve civility; on those grounds, it would be a reasonable interpretation to assume that the rule applied to using those words in general. On the other hand, we already have exceptions in the rules as to the language we’re allowed to use with other posters and non-posters, so on those grounds it would be reasonable to assume the difference could be carried on. I think there’s enough grounds that the question is a reasonable one.
Out of interest, if the purpose is to improve civility, why can we call non-posters cunts?
Unlikely.
After all, while you can’t call another Doper a cunt, you can still write the word, and even use it as an insult about off-board people.
Similarly, i can’t say to another Doper, “Fuck you,” but i can write, “I said ‘Fuck you!’ to the asshole who cut me off.”
I doubt the Google ad placement software recognizes the difference between those different usages.
Can we swear in other languages? That would be an incentive to learn Latin. Romans had the cutest swear words.
OUCH! Using the word *splinter *with the word “cunt” just HURTS! And I’m a guy! 
You two are really pusshing it! 
This.
IMHO, if they’ve done anything, the new rules have made the really personal insults more common.
The targets of the new incivility aren’t asking for protection from it, and it’s probably not a coincidence that they didn’t want to be protected from the old incivility either.
[Anton Chigurh] Let me ask you something. If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule? [/Anton Chigurh]
CMC fnord!
The rule is no language besides English is to be used, because the mods can’t monitor the boards.
My observations over the years:
Questions asking for translations have never been closed down to my knowledge. Little comments in your post in anything but English risk moderator action, but usually get a pass, and you’re normally expected to provide a translation to people when asked.
Because the purpose is to improve civility between members?
You are correct, sir (or madam).
Here is the rule, with the exceptions noted.
You know, I find this kind of attitude – ‘if you do not have the class to behave appropriately in polite society, go out and play with the proles’ – far more sickening than people calling each other cunts, and both are at least equally dehumanising.
This I agree with completely, however, it’s also the reason I’m not all that troubled by a ban on the word cunt and other insults; if I want to offend, I still can. Of course, that makes it a bit of absolutely useless, arbitrary censorship, but hey, if it makes the owners of the board happy, I can’t say I care that much either way. Want to make a token gesture towards political correctness just to feel good about yourself and maybe even increase the revenue stream by some fractional percentage? By all means, go for it.
If you find this attitude wrong, then you probably are the sort of person who is being asked to go play outside, n’est-ce pas?
I have no trouble asking that people in my hearing, invited into my house, at least behave in a civil fashion. And I expect them to follow my rules when so invited. If they don’t like it, they can have fun elsewhere. If that makes me “snooty,” or “elitist,” I’ll hazard that risk.
As, apparently, the people running and owning the Board are willing to do.
I’ll excuse your French, being the polite sort I am.
Laying out the rules, and expecting them to be followed, is not what makes you an elitist, and I have no problem with it; if I have a problem with what the rules say, I leave on my own behalf. What makes you an elitist is the pretension that the content of these rules (like ‘don’t say fuck you’) makes the company you keep that abides by these rules a better class of people, as compared with those whose rules (manner of conduct, whatever) differ from yours.
Well said.