- Duck duck DEATH
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
When I grow up I want to be bitter and spiteful.
"i liked the reality where everything was on fire better"
-legato on remedial chaos theory
Posted by: Kalriq
His other thread is a four days old.
Here.
He didn't make the last post, and if you can justify this being a new angle on the debate, then it's not an unnecessary bump.
Of course, that is if you can justify this being a new angle.It certainly isn't an old angle. I've yet to hear the argument for the point of firearms until now.
The general idea of both threads is 'Some words can have other meanings, they limit X discussion'Generalizing is cute but everyone knows you can generalize a thread to the point at which the thread is indistinguishable from all other threads and the generalization is untrue. It would be better to deal with the argument at hand.
Is there even an issue at hand?Just because you don't value an issue does not mean it is nonexistent. You should know this! So silly!
This is primarily a video games forum, with the exception of The Flood, which will forever be a secondary and minor function of this site. How often is it required to insert the cocking of a gun into a conversation?The majority of games Bungie has made are shooters. Guns are the sole mechanism of gameplay. Are you really this unaware?
And even if it does by chance slip in, if one form of the verb in this case is blammed, it's pretty easy to get around by rewritting your sentance.It still requires an unnecessary expenditure of effort.
As for his argument in the other thread, the discussion of anatomy? Refer to my other point. This is a video games forum, bar the Flood, and how often is that topic going to come up?That is not part of this discussion. One instance of anatomy does not invalidate an issue requiring gun mechanics.
Again, there are plenty of other terms to avoid to filter, without advocating the bypass of course.All of which should not be necessary.
Maybe I am belittling this thread, but only because what has been presented is senseless enough that even I can see simple solutions to all the problems our OP has highlighted.They are alternative workarounds that do not actually resolve the phrase in question.
If the filter actively inhibited the majority of the discussion on this site, and someone could prove that, by all means - present your case, but until that happens, and the fact that a few cases, affecting the minority of discussion, while preventing the use of cruder language and insults on the boards stands, I will not be swayed.I believe the filter should not impede discussion at all. The fundamental purpose of the rules and the filter is for the betterment and facilitation of discussion on this site. When the rules or the filter begin to impede normative discussion, it is fundamentally contradicting its very purpose.
Requiring the majority of discussion to be impeded is absurd, as truly any degree is problematic. Requiring a high degree of impediment just means you're ignorant to the issue at hand, and would rather resolve it when stops you in your tracks.
Your posts call to question if this issue is even an issue at all, calling it senseless and deeming it as indifferent from previous threads and nothing more than the agenda of the original poster. Since there is a legitimate impediment, your statements are as insulting as they are incorrect.