Implicating blahaj → plush
Link to implication

Reason:

Blahaj are a plush made and sold by IKEA. plush should be implied when tagging blahaj in my opinion.

EDIT: The tag implication blahaj -> plush (forum #273234) has been rejected by @Millcore.

EDIT: The tag implication blahaj -> plush (forum #273234) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.

-1. We don't use plush. We use plushie, and even then there's the chance that it's been made into a living shark.

Just take a look at post #1809303, where's the evidence Blahaj is a plushie there? A lot of them have little stitch marks or something but that's certainly not the case here.

blahaj should be aliased to blåhaj since that is the correct spelling

Furrin_Gok said:
We don't use plush. We use plushie

My Mistake, plushie is what I meant.

Furrin_Gok said:
Just take a look at post #1809303, where's the evidence Blahaj is a plushie there? A lot of them have little stitch marks or something but that's certainly not the case here.

Arguable, but I can't see where it would be obvious it's a living being.

hiekkapillu said:
blahaj should be aliased to blåhaj since that is the correct spelling

This sounds like a good idea.

Anonymous3355 said:
Arguable, but I can't see where it would be obvious it's a living being.

If it doesn't look like a plushie, assume it's a living being.

The tag implication blahaj -> plush (forum #273234) has been rejected by @Millcore.

The tag implication blahaj -> plush (forum #273234) has been rejected by @bitWolfy.