Difference between revisions of "Talk:Faggot"
| (2 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
Someone just put this up here to piss off all of the P.C. kids at Knox. | Someone just put this up here to piss off all of the P.C. kids at Knox. | ||
| + | |||
| + | Delete. --[[User:Afitz|Afitz]] 23:36, 17 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | I'm all for controversial postings, as long as they have SOMETHING to do with knox, either intrinsically or in their definition. This has neither, though, so I don't see the use in keeping it. [[User:Johnlane|Johnlane]] 14:23, 18 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Great. I agree. Will delete tonight unless anyone has a concern.[[User:Tfooq|Tfooq]] 15:40, 18 May 2007 (CDT) | ||
Latest revision as of 13:40, 18 May 2007
Copied from Talk:Fag Is this page really neccessary? The WikiFire isn't a dictionary, to begin with, we don't need a whole bunch of pages defining commmonly known word. I think everyone knows what this word means. I think everyone also knows that its a hateful word. Would we allow a page defining the n-word on here? GreatHeights 14:31, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
point. --Ocarina 14:34, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
I agree. I would imagine there would be a way for this page to have place on this site, but I can't think of what it might be and it certainly is not useful now. Delete?Tfooq 15:03, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
Someone just put this up here to piss off all of the P.C. kids at Knox.
Delete. --Afitz 23:36, 17 May 2007 (CDT)
I'm all for controversial postings, as long as they have SOMETHING to do with knox, either intrinsically or in their definition. This has neither, though, so I don't see the use in keeping it. Johnlane 14:23, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
Great. I agree. Will delete tonight unless anyone has a concern.Tfooq 15:40, 18 May 2007 (CDT)
