19

The username of this user is "Assh O. Le".

However, in his defence he has racked up 420 reputation and 19 bronze badges, so he's not without some merit.

Should this be allowed as a "humorous" moniker? Would we be overly prudish to disallow it?

Personally, I think this is going too far to be considered "funny". Actually, I consider it to be a broken window - I like things clean and tidy (basically everything Facebook is not).

I have evidence that "offensive" names do exist, for example, a real case a relative has seen while processing government paperwork is "Long Phat Kok", and I once did some work for the equivalent if the DMV and found three people with the unfortunate official name of "Mike Hunt", but this is not one of those cases - I don't believe the person is 94 or that this is his real name.

Improve this question
31
  • 25
    What shall you do if it's his real name?
    – John Dvorak
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 13:21
  • 5
    As he claims it is @JanDvorak. :)
    – Bart
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 13:22
  • 1
    I would expect a 93 year old that claims to have the brains to know about Stack Overflow and using the internet properly to have correct grammar, but maybe that's just stereotypical.
    – Qantas 94 Heavy
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 13:23
  • 1
    note must be taken, however, that more than half of this guy's rep is from edits
    – John Dvorak
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 13:26
  • 5
    @Bohemian and I don't think it's YOUR photo in your profile. What should we do about it? ^^
    – Cjxcz Odjcayrwl
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 13:30
  • 5
    The user, in my eyes, befits his pseudonym. It is clearly intended to troll.
    – Martijn Pieters
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 13:30
  • 1
    But he does have good answers. 200 rep worth of, to be exact
    – John Dvorak
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 13:31
  • 9
    Not quite as crafty as those Asian pilots who died in a plane crash a few months ago (theatlanticwire.com/national/2013/07/…), but not bad either.
    – Johnny Bones
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 13:38
  • 6
    @Bohemian: But then how do we know you're not actually a wombat? Because I'm definitely a unicorn.
    – BoltClock's a Unicorn Mod
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 13:50
  • 15
    @Bohemian Your father-in-law tells you names from government files for a laugh? Glad to here our data is secure.. as always.
    – James
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 14:06
  • 10
    I actually read this for the first five minutes as it being a syllabic spelling of "Ashley" and had no idea why it was offensive. I guess I'm not in tune with the douchebaggery this morning. o.O
    – asteri
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 15:43
  • 2
    You know, Korea got back at us for those ridiculous names. Cap'n Kent Parker Wright...
    – user206222
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 18:04
  • 7
    I, for one, find Assh O. Le completely acceptable, even though it's clearly aiming to be offensive. What's wrong with Mike Hunt, though? (Edit: ahh I see)
    – Pekka
    Commented Oct 21, 2013 at 18:48
  • 12
    What I find offensive is this inane digging into users' personal information, the source of his name, his family tree.... Enough already. Not everyone in the entire world has names that conform to your culture or expectations. If he claims it's his real name, have a little bit of trust here. And even if it's not - so what? He didn't call you a bad name. If he called himself @SomeRandomShmuck, how is that possibly offensive? This is the Internet. If you can't stand someone calling himself a vaguely "bad" word, I have some bad news for you about this Internet-thing....
    – AviD
    Commented Mar 27, 2014 at 10:13
  • 2
    YEAH!!! i totally agree to AVID @Bohemian i really hope this settles your problems with my name.
    – user2705620
    Commented Apr 1, 2014 at 7:31

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
11

The only reference AT ALL that I could find that might possibly govern this is the page detailing what kind of behaviour is acceptable. On it, there is no mention of usernames, but there is mention of explicatives. This username, under the strictest of guidelines, is pushing the boundaries because it's not overtly explicative, but could be construed as such. I say let it go, it's not a big deal.

Improve this answer
3
  • 2
    Please note this is a discussion question, not a support question.
    – John Dvorak
    Commented Oct 22, 2013 at 13:17
  • 1
    @JanDvorak - So, what's your point? Discussion questions aren't supposed to have answers? meta.stackexchange.com/questions/197552/…
    – Johnny Bones
    Commented Oct 22, 2013 at 14:20
  • 4
    They are, but the point of support questions is to explain the current policy, but the point of discussion questions is to potentially establish a new policy. Researching the current one does not seem to be useful for that purpose.
    – John Dvorak
    Commented Oct 22, 2013 at 14:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .