> i believe that the the picture w/ the 'popsickle' in the mouth is a reference to oral (you know what)

< one would be blantly dumb NOT to know this NOR to see this - and THAT is against the rules here (Kid-Friendly) in other words . . .

. . . the other picture is NOT sexual - by any degree - it depicts 'sensuality' - and there is a very big difference between that and sexuality . . . PERIOD


[edit] wiseguy ;)))

No, I don't know what. Tell us what what is.

So what is against the rules in that pic?

It is "suggestive", as has been pointed out by others previously.

---

Well...here is my question about the picture that Misfit posted...

That image has been removed on a couple of other occasions....why is it ok to post it now, if relatively recently, it was deemed to be not " kid friendly " ??

I must be missing something here.

And no...I don't figure on using the red x. Personally, I really don't care about that image or whether something is " kid friendly " what ever the heck that means.

I will say this, ( and this is strictly my way of looking at things, so if you choose to attack me about it, again, I don't really care ) different people looking at that image are going to see different things. A feminist is going to see a degrading image of a woman in a sexually suggestive pose. A non feminist most likely won't see that at all. Some will see a picture that is " suggestive " of oral sex ( GASP.....OMG I SAID SEX ON THE SETI FORUMS ) while others, like Jeff will see only a picture of a pretty woman eating a popsicle.

People are prone to certain responses depending on their experiences and opinions. That's just the way the world works folks.

As far as I am concerned....everyone needs to stop taking themselves so damn seriously and just get over themselves. Things are going to be seen or said that you don't like, ( and that goes for EVERYONE, I am not pointing out anyone in particular )guess what....it isn't the first time I have seen it happen,....and it sure as hell won't be the last.

I honestly think this place, and the people who come here would do well with a pretty good dose of apathy.

---

Air Cold, the blade stops;
from silent stone,
Death is preordained

Calm Chaos Forums : Everyone Welcome

Well...here is my question about the picture that Misfit posted...

That image has been removed on a couple of other occasions....why is it ok to post it now, if relatively recently, it was deemed to be not " kid friendly " ??

I must be missing something here.

And no...I don't figure on using the red x. Personally, I really don't care about that image or whether something is " kid friendly " what ever the heck that means.

I will say this, ( and this is strictly my way of looking at things, so if you choose to attack me about it, again, I don't really care ) different people looking at that image are going to see different things. A feminist is going to see a degrading image of a woman in a sexually suggestive pose. A non feminist most likely won't see that at all. Some will see a picture that is " suggestive " of oral sex ( GASP.....OMG I SAID SEX ON THE SETI FORUMS ) while others, like Jeff will see only a picture of a pretty woman eating a popsicle.

People are prone to certain responses depending on their experiences and opinions. That's just the way the world works folks.

As far as I am concerned....everyone needs to stop taking themselves so damn seriously and just get over themselves. Things are going to be seen or said that you don't like, ( and that goes for EVERYONE, I am not pointing out anyone in particular )guess what....it isn't the first time I have seen it happen,....and it sure as hell won't be the last.

I honestly think this place, and the people who come here would do well with a pretty good dose of apathy.

There have been many long discussions among the moderators about what is "kid-friendly" and I am happy to tell you that the group has been able to re-evaluate what is and is not appropriate. At one point Disney was suggested as a standard, though a duck without pants might seem risque to some. Look, the US Supreme Court can't define what is prurient, so we just do our best to make human judgements. Some may not agree with us, but we moderators do put some thought and much discussion behind our decisions.

Personally, I don't think that either the Mystique avatar or the censorship cartoon are over the line, and if they were being honest about it, neither do those who have complained about the censorship cartoon. My conclusion is based on the fact that both pictures share about the same level of exposure of the female body, but both posters have linked their use of the pictures with redeeming sentiments (Es99 claims hers is a role model and Misfit's has an anti-censorship message). The only logical motive for complaint has to be based on who posted the picture. And who says or shows something is not a valid basis for deleting the post.

If i were to push for the picture to be removed it would be because it violated this rule:

No abusive comments involving race, religion, nationality, gender, class or sexuality

However..i know there is little point because the moderators have circled the wagons and they protect their own no matter what.

However. I don't think that anyone could argue that pictures of a woman wearing a collar and leash (the last picture that Misfit posted) doesn't violate this rule.

No abusive comments involving race, religion, nationality, gender, class or sexuality

After all..if the picture were of a black man depicted in such a way there would be no argument and it would be removed.

---

Account frozen...

related Topic: Censorship - An Issue

UC Berkeley News has a great Review of a Symposium @ The School of Law on "The winner of the 2008 presidential election will potentially shape the future composition of the U.S. Supreme Court"

read more here: "The Next President and the Courts"

potentially - rulings may be altered in relation to Content . . .

The panelists agreed that the Senate confirmation process for judgeships has grown increasingly partisan, making it harder for anyone who has taken a stand on controversial issues to pass muster. "We'd be better off," Kelley said, "if both sides, within reason, would let people through whom they might not like."

by By Cathy Cockrell, NewsCenter | 25 February 2008

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

If i were to push for the picture to be removed it would be because it violated this rule:

No abusive comments involving race, religion, nationality, gender, class or sexuality

However..i know there is little point because the moderators have circled the wagons and they protect their own no matter what.

However. I don't think that anyone could argue that pictures of a woman wearing a collar and leash (the last picture that Misfit posted) doesn't violate this rule.

No abusive comments involving race, religion, nationality, gender, class or sexuality

After all..if the picture were of a black man depicted in such a way there would be no argument and it would be removed.

I don't agree. Such a picture may simply be a historical depiction, and not an abusive comment at all. Like this advertisement for the Docudrama "Roots".

Not all pictures are comments. As you pointed out in your earlier post, #718860, you have "attributed thoughts, actions and meanings" to that picture "that simply weren't there." You then built your case on your misconceptions.

When one side is over represented, the court/congress/senate/parliament or forum simply become a Bully Pulpit.

Interesting concept. I wish some of us had thought of that.

Thanks for the link Dr.

Such a picture may simply be a historical depiction, and not an abusive comment at all. Like this advertisement for the Docudrama "Roots".

Not all pictures are comments. As you pointed out in your earlier post, #718860, you have "attributed thoughts, actions and meanings" to that picture "that simply weren't there." You then built your case on your misconceptions.

Historical depiction eh?

So historical images of the French peasants beheading their oppressors is OK?

If so, can I edit modern faces into the depictions? That won't change the historic facts or alter the meanings of the depictions.

I don't want to cross any lines, so I thought I should get the OK from the authority on what's allowable first.

Not all pictures are comments. Please read what I said.

Posts that violate the rules, as determined by the appointed moderators, will be moderated.

Not all pictures are comments. Please read what I said.

Posts that violate the rules, as determined by the appointed moderators, will be moderated.

Who moderates the moderators?

MODERATORS @ SlashDot . . .

Will you delete my comment?

No. We believe that discussions in Slashdot are like discussions in real life - you can't change what you say, you only can attempt to clarify by saying more. In other words, you can't delete a comment that you've posted, you only can post a reply to yourself and attempt to clarify what you've said.

In short, you should think twice before you click that 'Submit' button because once you click it, we aren't going to let you Undo it

< funny HOW they do things there eh . . .

---

BOINC Wiki . . .

Science Status Page . . .

Not all pictures are comments. Please read what I said.

Posts that violate the rules, as determined by the appointed moderators, will be moderated.

Who moderates the moderators?

God. I mean Admin.

You know there are checks on moderators. Your daughter was a moderator for a while. We are appointed and removed by the project administrators. You may not like to acknowledge it, but we are also restricted in what we can and can't do. For instance, we can't discuss specific moderation decisions. Neither can posters by the way, because moderators can't fairly respond.

Keeping such comments by posters on the boards would leave readers with incorrect and often inflammatory impressions. A good example of this is your question: "Who moderates the moderators?", which leaves the impression that moderators are not moderated--something you know is not true, and it bears a response.

Removing improper comments is not censorship. It is proper administration of the posting rules.

Such a picture may simply be a historical depiction, and not an abusive comment at all. Like this advertisement for the Docudrama "Roots".

Not all pictures are comments. As you pointed out in your earlier post, #718860, you have "attributed thoughts, actions and meanings" to that picture "that simply weren't there." You then built your case on your misconceptions.

Historical depiction eh?

So historical images of the French peasants beheading their oppressors is OK?

If so, can I edit modern faces into the depictions? That won't change the historic facts or alter the meanings of the depictions.

I don't want to cross any lines, so I thought I should get the OK from the authority on what's allowable first.

If you EDIT a photo, Einstein, then you have in fact "altered the meaning of the depiction".

c: to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/edit

---

This thread has gone from being a discussion on Censorship to being a Mod-abuse thread. It was made clear that if it did not stop that it would be locked-therefore now it is.

It will remain locked for at least 24 hours while under discussion ensues among the mods. We reserve the right to leave it locked without further comment.

---