Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Zunaid
I think this topic has been dicussed to death for now. We are taking the necessary steps.
- Admin
Personally - I find it in bad taste at best and excrutiangly offensive at worst. We should have taken apropriate actions earlier and because we did not I personally apologize. I cannot begin to comprehend that people here on this forum did not find this nick offensive. Are we so far removed that we cannot understand the offense? What if someone logs in as "Tikka Khan" or "Butcher Niazi"? Even if the posts were seemingly innocuous, would that make it any better?
For a nation that has lost so many hunderd of thousands and millions to unsurprassed butchery and genocide should understand.
|
If you go on like that then you have to ban name 'Bush', 'Saddam'. Even some common name like 'Aorongojeb' would be offensive to some of our hindu friend. It would become a witch hunt.
I personaly feel this is of bad taste, I objected impulsively when I first saw it. but now I think it is simply unnecessary a cry for changing nick. I remember there was Stalin. No body give a damn about that. As Rubu correctly pointed to some 'Pandit' is bad taste. Even my nick is bad taste to someone.
Only Allah is the best. So if someone cry should I would be forced to change nick. And if Rubu demands would Pandit change his nick?
It is more on what he does in the board. There are more bigots in the board with nice nick. You have banned someone with some very nice nick. I think that should be criteria to judge. The name of one Jafar (with prefix Mir) just boiled our blood, but another Jafar (Bahadur Shah Jafar) clamed our blood. So would you also ban the name Jafar assuming that he reminds the board member about Mir Jafar.