What is wrong with a more PG Cafe?
What is wrong with a more PG Cafe? |
|
| log in |
Message boards : Politics : What is wrong with a more PG Cafe?
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 9 · Next
| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
We have a new new cruncher, Ice Man who has been asked by the mods to remove or otherwise sanitize his signature. See below. His contention has been that it's nothing you wouldn't see at the park or beach, ect. He has already removed naked (gasp) angels. What is wrong with a more PG approach? | |
ID: 468028 ·  | |
We have a new new cruncher, Ice Man who has been asked by the mods to remove or otherwise sanitize his signature. See below. His contention has been that it's nothing you wouldn't see at the park or beach, ect. He has already removed naked (gasp) angels. What is wrong with a more PG approach? PG? I would think that if I can see a bill board within 500 metres of a school, that the parents drive past on their way to dropping their children off at that school that shows posters in similar or more risque poses or states of undress (both male and/or female) then those same images should be allowed here. Now the hard part comes when different countries have different concepts of what is allowable on such bill boards. In Australia I know I see men and women in underwear in all manner of poses that are extremely suggestive and risque on the sides of buses, trams and on billboards. These posters are significantly more risque than the signature in question. I also know there are paintings/sculptures in the Louvre and in all museums that also leave very little to the imagination. The signature in question shows no "private" bits, but has a woman in a pose that requires some imagination or experience of what the pose signifies. If a child visits these boards and sees it I doubt that they could imagine what may be happening, and if they could, well then there is no need to censor it. Live long and BOINC (hehehehe). ____________ Paul (S@H1 8888)    And proud of it! | |
| ID: 468043 · | |
|
I realize also, that Seti@home has an image to the public that it must project, & we shouldn't shirk those duties. But does it HAVE to be of a puritanical Cafe? I would have to say that most 10-15 year olds are not crunching for SETI. They type XXX into a Google search, & click the first link that comes along. I am not proposing an XXX or even R-rated. But 99% of us here are adults. But some of us enjoy a good fun romp! | |
| ID: 468044 · | |
The signature in question shows no "private" bits, but has a woman in a pose that requires some imagination or experience of what the pose signifies. If a child visits these boards and sees it I doubt that they could imagine what may be happening, and if they could, well then there is no need to censor it. Maybe those people that see that & get offended, should get their mind out of the gutter. Those of that see it, & don't care, are the ones that love life, & know there are many people in the world. Not all people should be the same. ____________ Account frozen... | |
| ID: 468050 · | |
|
Perhaps people suspect the lady is using her breast pump and getting far too much pleasure from it? ;-) | |
| ID: 468060 · | |
|
| |
| ID: 468072 · | |
We have a new new cruncher, Ice Man who has been asked by the mods to remove or otherwise sanitize his signature. See below. His contention has been that it's nothing you wouldn't see at the park or beach, ect. He has already removed naked (gasp) angels. What is wrong with a more PG approach? I think his signature is fine, But his naked (gasp) angels were not kid friendly! I personally Liked most of his pictures but the ones in sexually explicit poses with the Devil etc was a bit more PG-13..... I am not a puritan by any means... The rules are the rules until they change we are stuck with them. We all are in a fight to save the cafe not make the situation worse. Posts must be 'kid friendly': they may not contain content that is obscene, hate-related, sexually explicit or suggestive. No links to web sites involving sexual content, gambling, or intolerance of others. ____________  | |
| ID: 468078 · | |
|
Gee... | |
| ID: 468089 · | |
Who would have thought those that condone exposing your breasts in public would be so offended by a simple picture. Well played, Sir. Well played. ____________ Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious...  | |
| ID: 468110 · | |
Who would have thought those that condone exposing your breasts in public would be so offended by a simple picture. And how is that well Played Rushbo? Apples and Oranges. ____________ | |
| ID: 468113 · | |
Nudity is nudity. Obviously some of you have yet to reach that conclusion.... ____________  | |
| ID: 468115 · | |
We have a new new cruncher, Ice Man who has been asked by the mods to remove or otherwise sanitize his signature. His contention has been that it's nothing you wouldn't see at the park or beach, ect. Ohferchrissakes. Who was it, or was it anonymous? Please, make another heart-wrenching plea--tell us again how "we're" all "trying" to do what "we feel" is right. No child in their right mind comes here for ANYTHING prurient, ever. They go to Google. I wonder how Google manages to survive in under the onslaught of parental pressure. Maybe they've figured out something that SETI can't quite grasp? Maybe they just ignore people who complain and go about their business? ____________ Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... | |
| ID: 468119 · | |
We have a new new cruncher, Ice Man who has been asked by the mods to remove or otherwise sanitize his signature. His contention has been that it's nothing you wouldn't see at the park or beach, ect. Rush, It is not what we want in this forum it's what the Admins want. They own this forum so we have to conform to there rules. If we don't like their rules then we need to go somewhere else. BTW Check your mail... ____________ | |
| ID: 468123 · | |
And how is that well Played Rushbo? Because the sexuality or sexual content in question is in the eye of the beholder, i.e. the story of the guy in the mall the oogled Tera(somethingorother) when she was breast feeding. Some people find public breast feeding offensive. Most do not. Other people find the picture in question offensive. Most do not. The problem comes in when, yet again, subjective human feelings are imposed on others. In this case, the contents of both pictures are perfectly natural. In fact, that pic of a woman breast feeding shows more breast than this one. In fact, the implication in this one probably is more natural. Overwhelmingly women have orders of magnitude more sexual experiences than they have babies--many women never have babies. But, once again, a moderator subjectively (and probably anonymously) decides that it is uncomfortable with a pic that shows less skin but a more suggestive pose. And why is that? To pander to the whiners and the red x'ers. That doesn't make the board better for everyone--it just pisses people off. ____________ Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... | |
| ID: 468126 · | |
Rush, It is not what we want in this forum it's what the Admins want. They own this forum so we have to conform to there rules. If we don't like their rules then we need to go somewhere else. Well, of course. I'm just pointing out the inconsistencies and the failures of the rules that I think have made the problem worse. But it's funny you should say that. If they had left the rules the way they were, and they actually thought that people who "don't like their rules then [] need to go somewhere else," we wouldn't be having this discussion. Because that's exactly the point, people who aren't comfortable should go somewhere else. That's the way it always should have been. That removes the need for silly experiments and constant threats. 2.00000008... 2.00000009... BTW Check your mail... I'm in class, bored. I'll check later, thanks! ____________ Cordially, Rush elrushbo2@theobviousgmail.com Remove the obvious... | |
| ID: 468127 · | |
|
Ice Man's NEW Angel . . . We have a new new cruncher, Ice Man who has been asked by the mods to remove or otherwise sanitize his signature. See below. His contention has been that it's nothing you wouldn't see at the park or beach, ect. He has already removed naked (gasp) angels. What is wrong with a more PG approach? ____________  BOINC Wiki . . .Science Status Page . . . | |
| ID: 468131 · | |
...naked (gasp) angels. Aren't all angels naked? Sure they've got feathers, but it's 100% nudity under that. What is wrong with a more PG approach? What is wrong with a more G-rated approach? Or an R-rated one? Or even PG-13? ____________ | |
| ID: 468159 · | |
|
...nothing wrong IMHO...just keep the X rated stuff out and the links as well. | |
| ID: 468164 · | |
...nothing wrong IMHO...just keep the X rated stuff out and the links as well. Very True - & it's SENSUAL NOT Sexual (in Context / Content) . . . ~ There's ACTUALLY a Difference ~ ____________ BOINC Wiki . . .Science Status Page . . . | |
| ID: 468167 · | |
...naked (gasp) angels. WTH? Since when? Often they're depicted wearing white robes, except for the occasional Victoria's Secret commercials last year. (P.S.: Victoria shared a secret w/ me back in June and I was so not impressed!) ____________ Account ... | |
| ID: 468207 · | |
Message boards : Politics : What is wrong with a more PG Cafe?
| Copyright © 2013 University of California |
