StarGateWars Forums

Mordack wrote:I'm reopening this thread at KnowLedge's request.

My apologies to all involved for not attending to it sooner - I honestly thought it had been resolved, probably because it was locked.

nope sorry, had famely issues then and took a breack, didn't have office when i got back

honestly regarding this: if you use the first defenition granted in this thread then it hould be warnable cuz that one is: rascist, abuse and even taking it RL

the others on the other hand provide a more friendly nature to it wich would be acceptable on the forum. same as saying: your jus talk and can't back it up. something like: wannebee

zeekomkommer wrote:

Mordack wrote:I'm reopening this thread at KnowLedge's request.

My apologies to all involved for not attending to it sooner - I honestly thought it had been resolved, probably because it was locked.

nope sorry, had famely issues then and took a breack, didn't have office when i got back

honestly regarding this: if you use the first defenition granted in this thread then it hould be warnable cuz that one is: rascist, abuse and even taking it RL

the others on the other hand provide a more friendly nature to it wich would be acceptable on the forum. same as saying: your jus talk and can't back it up. something like: wannebee

As far as I can tell, any word with a slighty (or not slighty) negative meaning can get very rude definition somewhere in the internet. We can always find an exagerate version and then use it conveniently to cry wolf about being insulted by the "worst of all things" -racism-. This word becoming very poorly used, used as an attempt to win an argument about something when the side of the user is about to lose it. "But it's racist!" Like if it was the ultimate arguement, and useable on any possible situation...
In fact, AssassinX was just annoyed that I pointed out he derailed the thread with his rudeness and tried to cover his back, from the obvious guiltiness of his, by starting this topic.

Wakko wrote:

Dr. House wrote:Eh, "e-thug" isn't a "warnable" offense. Case closed

zeekomkommer wrote:honestly regarding this: if you use the first defenition granted in this thread then it hould be warnable cuz that one is: rascist, abuse and even taking it RL

what, are we catering to babies now?

KnowLedge wrote:now here is the definition of the word E-Thug
1. e-thug
Electronic thug. A pale, pimple faced, skinny white kid who would most likely burn up if he came into contact with natural sunlight. Spends all of his time threatening people over the internet to compensate for his lack of a life and hatred of humanity for not accepting him.


I take the "pale, pimple faced, skinny white kid" as a personal insult. This is also something racial. It is a racial stereotype.

...oh wait. if we're taking Urban dictionary as a reference....

~soul

well its Urban Dictionary because thats what the world means in the MODERN world that we live in today.

just because its not treditionally a insulting word, it shouldnt be warned against? it may have not been 30 years ago, but now it IS.

tell me why its not warnable jack. is it not a personal insult which is insulting my colour and my body? it is a deragotory comment in 2010.

That just didn't make sense, AssAssinX.

KnowLedge wrote:well its Urban Dictionary because thats what the world means in the MODERN world that we live in today.

just because its not treditionally a insulting word, it shouldnt be warned against? it may have not been 30 years ago, but now it IS.

tell me why its not warnable jack. is it not a personal insult which is insulting my colour and my body? it is a deragotory comment in 2010.

Derogatory comments aren't always warnable, and we don't have a system in place where every comment which someone could potentially be offended by is prohibited. That would be silly.

These forums are an environment in which people clash. They are, after all, linked to a war game. Tempers will inevitably flare, and some of the titantic egos floating around will inevitably brush up against one another. Provided that people remain within the guidelines, and don't cross a line, then they should be free to say things which aren't the textual equivalent of a hug-in-a-mug.

I agree with Jack. 'E-Thug', regardless of convenient definitions from easily edited webpages, should not be warnable. Our recomendation to the administration will reflect our collective viewpoint.

KnowLedge wrote:well its Urban Dictionary because thats what the world means in the MODERN world that we live in today.

just because its not treditionally a insulting word, it shouldnt be warned against? it may have not been 30 years ago, but now it IS.

tell me why its not warnable jack. is it not a personal insult which is insulting my colour and my body? it is a deragotory comment in 2010.

Now to show how much urban dictionary can just say ANYTHING and can barely be taken as a trustable source:

First definition for "bear" in the urban dictionary

Bear 1304 up, 365 down

A term used by gay men to describe a husky, large man with a lot of body hair.

Now "bear" is an "offensive word" because of that entry?

No comment!!!

Just because some twisted minded people use this *free entry* site to post their definition doesn't mean it's anything close to valid ones just because it's there.

---

That just confirmed what I said earlier in this topic, you take this "dictionary" as a reference, I don't (fortunately, might I add).
Considering the above, it's just making up excuses from your side to find a way to cover your troublemaking the thread in question.
If we were to search for any urban dictionary definition about any word, three quarters could be considered as offensive.

KnowLedge wrote:well its Urban Dictionary because thats what the world means in the MODERN world that we live in today.

just because its not treditionally a insulting word, it shouldnt be warned against? it may have not been 30 years ago, but now it IS.

tell me why its not warnable jack. is it not a personal insult which is insulting my colour and my body? it is a deragotory comment in 2010.

if you honestly believe UrbanDictionary is a reputable source of information, then logic is lost on you. its content is editable to the public, much in the same way Wikipedia is. Hence why any good teacher will tell students to NOT cite Wikipedia for information or other research based projects.

~soul

Solus wrote:

KnowLedge wrote:well its Urban Dictionary because thats what the world means in the MODERN world that we live in today.

just because its not treditionally a insulting word, it shouldnt be warned against? it may have not been 30 years ago, but now it IS.

tell me why its not warnable jack. is it not a personal insult which is insulting my colour and my body? it is a deragotory comment in 2010.

if you honestly believe UrbanDictionary is a reputable source of information, then logic is lost on you. its content is editable to the public, much in the same way Wikipedia is. Hence why any good teacher will tell students to NOT cite Wikipedia for information or other research based projects.

~soul

I would like to add that not all university teachers have such stance regarding wikipedia (but they all agree not to base searches mainly on it, some agree as an optional/additional tool to use, some don't), because unlike in urban dictionary, it's more likely to find accurate definitions on wikipedia.

Knowledge, you don't live up to your name really do you?

Why not drop this arguement. I know you are just clutching at straws and trying your luck at winning this arguement, trust me i know the signs because i've done it myself before, not something i'm proud of. Also everyone else reading this thread can see that you are just trying your luck and that there's no substance to your "i'm offended" stance.

If you take personal offence to the meaning of e-thug well maybe it's closer to the truth, but guess what... no-one knows what you look like anyway, so how can it be an insult?

Jack is right that it is not a warnable offence. i don't know what you are trying to achieve here, but trust me you'll only get yourself wound up.

Leg Apophis wrote:I would like to add that not all university teachers have such stance regarding wikipedia (but they all agree not to base searches mainly on it, some agree as an optional/additional tool to use, some don't), because unlike in urban dictionary, it's more likely to find accurate definitions on wikipedia.

more likely because wikipedia is moderated. UD is far less strict on the edits made. in either case, publicly editable sources of information are hardly legitimate.

~soul

okay, this has gone long enough.
the only reason this thread was created was because "fignuts" was filtered based on it's urban-dictionary definition.
fignuts was un-filtered, dropping the floor below this thread.
g'day to you.

What is that pseudo-argument doing here, Hitchkok?

you guys along with Jack fail to see the logic, .

I understand its not reputable. and thats not my argument here.

Read this and Read this carefully.. I will NOT Be repeating this.
in the MODERN world, "E-Thug" is associated with "skinny-White kid". I understand that this 'proof' comes from urban dictionary. BUT the reason why its on urban dictionary is because many of the 7 billion people on this earth are using that definition for that word. That is the REASON why urbandictionary exists.. its to translate what modern people are using and understanding.

From my point of view and of many Modern people, This is an insult. Im not saying its an insult cause urban dictionary says so. Im saying it is an insult because that is what I and 90% of the worlds population sees the word as being, and for this reason it is warnable, Jack.

I may be trying my luck clarkey, but it is indeed a valid argument and is in need of an explanation.
how is calling me a "skinny white kid" not a personal insult?
that remains to be answered by the mods or anyone.

we arent debating the source urban dictionary. we are debating weather "skinny white kid" IS or IS NOT a personal insult. Because indeed in the modern world, "E-Thug" is associated with "skinny white kid"

in short: if most of the world's population sees this word as a personal insult, then why doesn't this forum?