I thought you were saying that you had also made a joke against your self - as if that made it alright.
No...all I did was say that I wasn't aware such jokes were against the rules. And noted that the joke was probably very difficult to respond to.
I'm not sure they are. We are still evolving the rules. I'd say your joke word, being coarse but clever was borderline. People vary on this question, obviously, but it is a public forum and I suspect we'll opt for a conservative position on coarse language in the end to avoid giving offence.
I still think you (and the originator of the, "joke") owe it to yourselves and everyone else to apologize.
No...I don't owe an apology to anyone else. You might be right that I owe it to myself, though. But then, I have lots of debts I have incurred to myself that are unsettled.
Not a good idea really, IMO.
However, I can't get past this niggling (OMG!) little perception that I have seen no such persistent suggestions for apologies given to some who have engaged in even more enormous insult than some giggling over what I still perceive as a funny rejoinder.
Your final rejoinder to XveganX was
clever and I grant it was funny too, despite the coarseness of the language; and even justified in view of XveganX's comment to you. That wasn't the issue. My suggestion of apology relates to your treatment of Phantomuk - not XveganX.
As to precedents I think you'll find quite a few apologies, from both sides, if you go back through the posts. However, in all the cases I can remember the people reprimanded for giving offence offered their apology without being asked. Still you are right; equally offensive or perhaps worse things have gone by (or been deleted) without apology offered or sought. Perhaps you just walked in at the wrong moment. Perhaps I think you are worth the effort. I'm not sure. Anyway, it's your decision. If you don't think it appropriate, obviously you won't do it.
Now I will admit that I sometimes pay little attention to official rules except to see how close to the line I can go. What
But I pay close attention to the rules that others show they personally play by. And that joke in question seems entirely within Phanto's rules.
Possibly but it isn't the point. In the first place, while Phantomuk has used some extremely
strong and offensive language, particularly, in response to ridicule re his occasional dyslexic formulations, he has apologized to Josh and has
re-formed. In the second place it isn't only Pantomuk who is reading your posts.
Don't get me wrong. I sorta like the kid, despite our polarity on certain issues.
It isn't about who you like.
But a little appreciation for the irony of his own situation contrasted with his own words wouldn't hurt him any.
Let me see now. Publicly ridiculing Phantomuk's dyslexia is supposed to help him appreciate the, "irony of his situation". Yes?
No, sorry! Can't grasp it. Would you care to elaborate?