Talk:Cunt/Archive1

Justice
I hope I have done this topic justice. One of my socks has just whispered to me that I ought to donate it kindly to Conservapedia--CatWatcher 05:56, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * A truly amusing thought, but I'd check first if cunt is still potentially in the Spam Filter there. If so, you'd have to work around it, like this:  cunt  (which will render as "cunt" without triggering the filter). --Sid 06:28, 27 May 2007 (CDT)


 * Very interesting and well written piece. Would make a worthy donation! Trashbat 06:49, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * And the illustration would really enhance the article there, I think.--CatWatcher 06:51, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

Wow, that's a pretty awesome piece. I'm sure it'll come in handy as the wiki grows. --Kels 09:19, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * Thanks. I think we need other, similar pieces. I was fascinated to find the London reference. I wonder where the lane is. It must have had a fascinating history.--CatWatcher 09:47, 27 May 2007 (CDT)
 * There are a few of them about. They were often the haunt of prostitutes. I noticed a "Grope Lane" in Shrewsbury last year and looked it up - WP covers it - evidently the cunt bit was dropped to appease sensibilities. This is the sort of stuff that I really like about the UK, human, heartwarming stories. Anybody goin to do a piece on the Austrian town of "Fucking"? Mad Min 10:26, 27 May 2007 (CDT)



Don't forge that one of the Wagina monologues is called "I call it CUNT". Complete with the CUNT cheer, as I recall. Someday, I'm gonna interview a bunch of old heart attack survivors and write the Angina Monologues... human be in 23:01, 27 May 2007 (CDT)

photo inclusion?
user:Ed Poor deleted the multi way gif of Andy, RMN, and nuclear explosions with this edit comment: "Is it "rational" to attack your opponents this way, or is this an Assault on Reason?"

Well, is it appropriate? (I reverted the edit pending discussion, as many people have seen this image and have felt fine with it) human be in 11:06, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Personally, I think it's a cheap shot and hardly does our credibility any good. Then again, I've just finished rewriting Goatse so maybe I'm not one to talk about credibility! Still, it's more offensive than it is funny so I'd vote for delete. Trashbat 11:09, 21 June 2007 (CDT)


 * I agree with Trash. It's a cheap jibe. We all know the reality but it it makes RW look petty. This topic would not be aired at CP so the whole point of it appearing on RW should be that the article is a rational discourse on the word. By using it in the pejorative sense we are justifying the shock-horror reaction when we should be defusing it.  God's peed Babel fishÅЯ†ђŮŖ ÐΣй† Now look here! 11:21, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I don't know, it's under "Shock Value". That's one of the uses of taboo language, after all. (Need to look up a couple of reference books on that. There's some good stuff being written about the sociolinguistic and psycholinguistic uses of swearing and invective.) MyaR 11:22, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * But the photo itself isn't "shocking", it's more of an "in joke". And I agree with Mr. Dent, above.  Maybe a photo of a nuclear blast/mushroom cloud, captioned "only a cunt would set one of these off" would be ok.  But as time goes by, hopefully, fewer and fewer visitors will be instantly familiar with Andy's phizzog. human be in 11:26, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I see it as a waste of a good gif. It would be fine under Paranoia or Delusions, (sans the thermonuclear device exploding). I'd rather an unflattering pic of HRC with no caption be placed somewhere but that's me. And I am CЯacke ®
 * Well, in-group cohesion is another use of taboo language. But I have no problem with removing it, and think it's a good idea that in-jokes about CP be kept to a minimum on actual 'article' pages. MyaR 11:30, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I know it's soon, but it looks to me like consensus and sense would dictate removing it. For now I'll comment it out in case the decision swings the other way over time. (keep discussing) human be in 11:44, 21 June 2007 (CDT)
 * I agree with Ed on this one. Seems too much like a cheap shot. As he is not here (I assume) to defend himself from what really amounts to a childish taunt, it ought to be removed and more properly placed among CP related issues. IMHO  ʄĹїþþїɲ ;-) 11:49, 21 June 2007 (CDT)

Red links
I've removed some red links from this article. No doubt if another author disagrees they will re-insert them and write the stubs.--Bob_M (talk) 09:57, 4 August 2007 (CDT)