# Pit Rules, Revisited

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [July 26, 2009, 3:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289 "2009-07-26T03:49:40Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Showing post:** 62

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![zut](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/zut/32/2875_2.png) [@zut](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/zut)\
**Post date:** [November 18, 2009, 6:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289/62 "2009-11-18T18:40:22Z")

</div>

Well, “refers to” is probably a better phrasing than “invites a,” if that’s what you’re objecting to. If you’re objecting to the idea that “fuck off” implies or refers to a sex act, then, again, you can take up that line of reasoning with Ed.

For reference:

> [@Proposed language restrictions in the Pit](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-language-restrictions-in-the-pit/487910/9):
>
> Second thought: **Ed, is the issue here _direct_ insults of other posters/members of the Dope using offensive language with words referring to sex acts** (which could cover most, if not all, of what you list, and f\*lch as well)? But you could still use those terms regarding someone/something _outside_ the Doper community? Because that’s what I’m getting out of it.

> [@Proposed language restrictions in the Pit](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/proposed-language-restrictions-in-the-pit/487910/14):
>
> **Yes.** Not saying we encourage such things, and if your posting repertoire consisted entirely of obscene rants about politicians or whoever, we’d likely tell you to knock it off. But that’s what our policy has always been.

[Bolding in both quotes mine, natch.]

---

_[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/pit-rules-revisited/504289)._