Due to issues with external spam filters, QQ is currently unable to send any mail to Microsoft E-mail addresses. This includes any account at live.com, hotmail.com or msn.com.
Signing up to the forum with one of these addresses will result in your verification E-mail never arriving. For best results, please use a different E-mail provider for your QQ address.
For prospective new members, a word of warning: don't use common names like Dennis, Simon, or Kenny if you decide to create an account. Spammers have used them all before you and gotten those names flagged in the anti-spam databases. Your account registration will be rejected because of it.
Since it has happened MULTIPLE times now, I want to be very clear about this. You do not get to abandon an account and create a new one. You do not get to pass an account to someone else and create a new one. If you do so anyway, you will be banned for creating sockpuppets.
Due to the actions of particularly persistent spammers and trolls, we will be banning disposable email addresses from today onward.
The rules regarding NSFW links have been updated. See here for details.
I want to make a joke about how suggesting X shows why a certain poster's side lost the Cold War, with X being what I believe to be an impractical suggestion.
Well, at a high level, bringing up Cold War era stuff is old enough it probably won't spark an argument, so it probably wouldn't fit R8.
On the other hand, the way you describe it, it almost sounds like a derail is already taking place (Why would bringing up which side a poster belongs/belonged to for the Cold War be at all relevant to whatever topic at hand? MAYBE some history thread, maybe...). Actually thinking more, it would be poking at the poster themselves, instead of a topic, so regardless of whether it would be on topic or not, it would be getting into Rule 1 territory.
Now, whether it would break Rule 1, well, would have to see it exactly and the context it would be used in, but it would need to be extremely well done AND on topic to be fine.
Btw, the joke was about how the other poster lacks a good understanding of economics because he suggested something that would be highly impractical from an economical perspective.