Hmm. Ms. Callahan might be a liar, but you need some work on your logic. Just because you can get an "allah" username *now* doesn't mean that this was always the case. Yahoo might want to avoid controversy, and so changed their policy. That's a possibility, no?
PJB,
I tried to register "allah" related email addresses immediately when I heard about this on TheRegister and it denied me on every attampt on including the word Allah. I tried Allah and my last name (which is a very, very unique family name) and other permutations.
Yahoo must have corrected the issue since, but trust me: I tried it and no username that I tried with "allah" was allowed.
So dont diss Andrew Sullivan, dont forget its easy for Yahoo to change their filters.
- StrategyUnit
Possible, but not very plausible.
Especially given that there are many people out there already with "callahan" emails.
For example: one Adam Callahan, whom I found after approximately 1 minute of searching.
No, I don't think that's possible. Are you saying that no one with Callahan as a last name was able to get a Yahoo email with some version of their name until yesterday? Very unlikely, in my estimation.
Boy, everybody here is good at jumping to unsupported conclusions, aren't they?
The prop. of this blog announces that because, AFTER MEDIA ATTENTION, it is possible to register a name with Allah in it, therefore it has always been so.
A commenter announces that because there is an existing name with Allah in it, it could never have been the case, even for a week, that such was banned. The possibility that said Callahan registered 10 years ago (which is about how old my Yahoo name is) and sensitivity to "allah" only sprouted up recently is never considered (because, after all, what historical event could have led to that?)
Yeah, that Andrew Sullivan, he sure does leap without looking....
Are you saying that no one with Callahan as a last name was able to get a Yahoo email with some version of their name until yesterday? Very unlikely, in my estimation.
but true
Yes. Mad props to you, Pepe. I put a correction up.
Mike G: If Weblogistan ain't the place for unsupported conclusions, then what is?
Hi Pete,
Sadly you miss the point..... It is the silent, unseen censorship that is going on in the media, in companies, in art, and in literature - as a result of the islamo-facist intimitation - (as clearly demonstrated by Yahoo's unilateral decision to ban "Allah", while allowing all other religious god names) that is WORSE than the overt type of opression that you mock Andrew Sullivan for pointing out...
We are facing an Information War against islamo-facism, and you need to understand how they are winning the war, before you criticise others for helping to fight back!!!
Bleh. All it means is that people were trying to sign up for email addresses with names like allahsucks@yahoo.com at a much higher rate than jesusisapedophile@thevatican.org or somesuch. You can't put "nigger" in your Yahoo address, either. If Yahoo sees widespread abuse of their policy, they can stop it if they wish. If people kept trying to register moseslovesbrokeback@yahoo.com, they'd probably ban that too.
In short, what this says is there are tons of bigots amongst us.
"You can't put "nigger" in your Yahoo address, either."
But you can use "CrackerHonkyRedneck."
Yahoo's a lot more worried that muslims will flip out when they see "QuestionAllah@yahoo.com" than some christians being annoyed at "JesusIsWatchingYouPoop@yahoo.com".
Squeaky Wheel
Whoops, my oh-so clever use of arrows was eaten by the HTML filter.
Last line:
Squeaky Wheel gets the grease, etc.
You've gotta love Yahoo's statement to announce the lifting of the ban. If there were such a thing as a BS meter, it would go off the scale when measuring this gem:
'Allah' was one word being used for these purposes, with instances tied to defamatory language. We took steps to help protect our users by prohibiting use of the term in Yahoo! usernames. We recently re-evaluated the term 'Allah' and users can now register for IDs with this word because it is no longer a significant target for abuse.
Translation: We decided to end the prohibition because the blocking of an inoccuous username turned out to generate more bad publicity for us than any abuse ever did.
It'll be interesting to see how Islamic supremacist types respond to this. "Allah" usernames on Yahoo probably weren't on their radar screen before all this went down, but now that it's become a news item, will they treat it like the Danish Mohammed cartoons? And if so, will Yahoo back down and reinstate the ban? Stay tuned; somehow I doubt this saga is over yet.
You may be right, Joshua.
Jeff R: "cracker", "honky" and "redneck" are not even remotely as offensive as "nigger." Not even when you string them all together. I'm not saying they shouldn't be, per se, but that's our language.
Commenting by HaloScan
