Sabotaged condom

BUR #25766 has been rejected.

create alias sabotaged_condom -> hole_in_condom

Hole_in_* is the standard tagging style.

Only reason I am voting no on this is because there are a few posts with less subtle sabotage

Well some of those couldn't even have been put on. But I'm not to sure about "hole" being the only option.

BUR #25771 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication sabotaged_condom -> condom

Either way it needs an implication.

Like what's said previously, sabotage does not need to be a hole.

There are also some that don't even feature the damaged condom itself, either because it hasn't been sabotaged yet: post #6722735, or is only implied to have been sabotaged: post #7013686

War6t2 said:

BUR #25771 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create implication sabotaged_condom -> condom

Either way it needs an implication.

Other missing condom implications to not derail the thread BUR #25772.

BUR #25773 has been rejected.

create alias hole_in_condom -> sabotaged_condom

Reversed alias

punished_K said:

BUR #25773 has been rejected.

create alias hole_in_condom -> sabotaged_condom

Reversed alias

That's ambiguous with broken_condom.

nonamethanks said:

That's ambiguous with broken_condom.

I disagree; broken condom would be synonymous with "torn condom".
Even the wiki entry for sabotaged condom calls out that it's about a needle-pricked pinhole.

punished_K said:

I disagree; broken condom would be synonymous with "torn condom".
Even the wiki entry for sabotaged condom calls out that it's about a needle-pricked pinhole.

"hole in condom" is ambiguous. A broken condom can have just a hole in it.

nonamethanks said:

"hole in condom" is ambiguous. A broken condom can have just a hole in it.

This

The bulk update request #25766 (forum #278997) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.

The bulk update request #25771 (forum #279013) has been approved by @nonamethanks.

The bulk update request #25773 (forum #279024) has been rejected by @nonamethanks.