Censorship - CLOSED

Author	Message
Blurf Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 2 Sep 06 Posts: 8962 Credit: 12,678,685 RAC: 0	Message 718873 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:43:44 UTC - in response to Message 718871. Last modified: 27 Feb 2008, 0:47:08 UTC . . . to the lot that 'defends' Chris' image - DO any of you know WHO Linsner is? eh? Where on the image Misfit posted does it show the author's name? I am familiar with Lisner's work (which is sexually provocative) but I see no evidence of this being his work... ID: 718873 ·

Qui-Gon Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11	Message 718874 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:44:13 UTC - in response to Message 718867. ....................your complaint about one without acknowledging the same criticism of your own simply proves that your opinion is really just bias against the poster. I have never seen you apologize or admit error--even when the error is glaring. [Snip] . . . you say that she has some bias towards the poster? I really think you should choose your friends more carefully.. So, Mom, are you admitting your sweetie-girl is simply biased and that her complaint has no basis? And how about you? You complained about that "cartoon" picture, yet you defend your daughter who has done the same thing. Are you now admitting your own intellectual dishonesty (something I have seen you demonstrate for years)? The subject at hand is censorship as it relates to certain pictures of females. Are these pictures--both of them--acceptable or not? Don't try to defend your error by referencing some external dispute that has no rational relation to the issue here. The longer you, Es99/Mystique and Robert continue to defend your indefensible position, the more you expose yourselves for the foolish, brain-dead ideologues that you are. It's not your fault that you couldn't chose your daughter "more carefully". You certainly didn't teach her how to think "more carefully". I see here you are responding to my post - Message 718796 It doesn't seem to exist anymore, but what I have noticed is you have since gone back and selectively edited my quoted post. Why didn't you take the whole post out or is it because you want to change the meaning of what I said? Not at all. I didn't remove your post (you should know that if you read the moderation notice), but since I quoted your post, my post was hidden too. I edited out what was deemed against the rules, and asked that the other moderator unhide my response, at his discretion. Your meaning was not changed, I only took out your description of an "external dispute". But feel free to back out of you position by claiming that I changed the meaning of your post. I never really expected any of you to apologize or admit fault anyway. ID: 718874 ·

Hev Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 4 Jun 05 Posts: 1118 Credit: 598,303 RAC: 0	Message 718876 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:48:22 UTC - in response to Message 718874. Not at all. I didn't remove your post (you should know that if you read the moderation notice), but since I quoted your post, my post was hidden too. I edited out what was deemed against the rules, and asked that the other moderator unhide my response, at his discretion. Your meaning was not changed, I only took out your description of an "external dispute". But feel free to back out of you position by claiming that I changed the meaning of your post. I never really expected any of you to apologize or admit fault anyway. I haven't received any moderation notice, only noticed it was gone. Why do you have an obsession about collecting apologies? ID: 718876 ·

Es99 (part ii) Send message Joined: 6 Jul 07 Posts: 291 Credit: 18,010 RAC: 0	Message 718877 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:48:33 UTC - in response to Message 718870. Brainsmashr..the movie the avatar from my Mystique account is taken from..the wonderful character Mystique who is a role model women can be proud of..has a different film rating here in England. However if it is deemed against the rules of the board then i will if requested to do so in a polite respectful manner by the moderators without use of threats, remove it. Are you simply unfamiliar with the character Mystique or do you consider all villains who abandon their children (from multiple fathers I might add) to be "role models"? I think that is a discussion for another day and another thread. ;) No, do tell us here how the character Mystique is a role model for women. I think you are too literal a person to understand my answer so I won't bother trying to explain. Account frozen... ID: 718877 ·

Fuzzy Hollynoodles Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0	Message 718880 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:50:11 UTC - in response to Message 718871. . . . to the lot that 'defends' Chris' image - DO any of you know WHO Linsner is? eh? Have no idea. Why should I know? I see a drawing of a young girl with a lollipop, and with some words on about censorship. Which this thread is about. So, your point is? "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me ID: 718880 ·

Hev Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 4 Jun 05 Posts: 1118 Credit: 598,303 RAC: 0	Message 718881 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:51:14 UTC - in response to Message 718877. I think you are too literal a person to understand my answer so I won't bother trying to explain. It's known as 'concrete thinking' ID: 718881 ·

Dr. C.E.T.I. Send message Joined: 29 Feb 00 Posts: 16019 Credit: 794,685 RAC: 0	Message 718883 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:52:50 UTC - in response to Message 718873. Last modified: 27 Feb 2008, 0:55:21 UTC . . . to the lot that 'defends' Chris' image - DO any of you know WHO Linsner is? eh? Where on the image Misfit posted does it show the author's name? I am familiar with Lisner's work (which is sexually provocative) but I see no evidence of this being his work... Pete - it is Linsner's work - believe me . . . though as you know = it wouldn't be 'Kid-Friendly' for me to Post any links - due to the nature of said works i don't 'personally' have anything against his work - it's just that it shouldn't be on the Boards since it's against the Rules to Post such Links i thought i'd get edited based on the fact that i said his name . . . [edit] i'll take a chance with this one: Presenting Ã¢â‚¬â€œ CENSORSHIP SUCKS ... 384 x 576 - 232k - jpg www.linsner.com BOINC Wiki . . . Science Status Page . . . ID: 718883 ·

Qui-Gon Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11	Message 718884 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:54:44 UTC - in response to Message 718871. Last modified: 27 Feb 2008, 0:55:50 UTC . . . to the lot that 'defends' Chris' image - DO any of you know WHO Linsner is? eh? Yes I do. It is irrelevant to the post, picture and message. And as Blurf pointed out, it is not obvious that Linsner is even associated with this post, except that you seem to think it, so how could "who he is" affect any decision to keep or delete the picture? By the way, I am "defending" Es99/Mystique's avatar also. Neither of the images (key word images) are demeaning or offensive. But one is being attacked because it was posted by someone you (plural) don't like, while the other is left alone because it is the avatar of someone you do like. And that is hypocrisy. ID: 718884 ·

Blurf Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 2 Sep 06 Posts: 8962 Credit: 12,678,685 RAC: 0	Message 718885 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:56:12 UTC - in response to Message 718883. Pete - it is Linsner's work - believe me . . . though as you know = it wouldn't be 'Kid-Friendly' for me to Post any links - due to the nature of said works i don't 'personally' have anything against his work - it's just that it shouldn't be on the Boards since it's against the Rules to Post such Links Sorry Richard --there is no confirmation this is his work. It looks similar to some other cartoonists I've seen. IF it was from him--that alone wouldn't make the picture against the rules. ID: 718885 ·

Fuzzy Hollynoodles Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0	Message 718886 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:56:30 UTC - in response to Message 718877. Brainsmashr..the movie the avatar from my Mystique account is taken from..the wonderful character Mystique who is a role model women can be proud of..has a different film rating here in England. However if it is deemed against the rules of the board then i will if requested to do so in a polite respectful manner by the moderators without use of threats, remove it. Are you simply unfamiliar with the character Mystique or do you consider all villains who abandon their children (from multiple fathers I might add) to be "role models"? I think that is a discussion for another day and another thread. ;) No, do tell us here how the character Mystique is a role model for women. I think you are too literal a person to understand my answer so I won't bother trying to explain. Maybe not, but I am sure others here are interested in how you see the character Mystique as a role model for women. "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me ID: 718886 ·

Fuzzy Hollynoodles Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 3 Apr 99 Posts: 9659 Credit: 251,998 RAC: 0	Message 718887 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:58:20 UTC - in response to Message 718881. I think you are too literal a person to understand my answer so I won't bother trying to explain. It's known as 'concrete thinking' What is known as 'concrete thinking'? "I'm trying to maintain a shred of dignity in this world." - Me ID: 718887 ·

Dr. C.E.T.I. Send message Joined: 29 Feb 00 Posts: 16019 Credit: 794,685 RAC: 0	Message 718888 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 0:59:16 UTC - in response to Message 718885. Last modified: 27 Feb 2008, 1:01:43 UTC Pete - it is Linsner's work - believe me . . . though as you know = it wouldn't be 'Kid-Friendly' for me to Post any links - due to the nature of said works i don't 'personally' have anything against his work - it's just that it shouldn't be on the Boards since it's against the Rules to Post such Links Sorry Richard --there is no confirmation this is his work. It looks similar to some other cartoonists I've seen. IF it was from him--that alone wouldn't make the picture against the rules. Pete: see this Presenting Ã¢â‚¬â€œ CENSORSHIP SUCKS ... 384 x 576 - 232k - jpg www.linsner.com Chris got THAT particular image FROM that site and put it into HIS Photobucket Gallery ;)) suggestion: just e-mail Michael regarding his having made THAT image, eh BOINC Wiki . . . Science Status Page . . . ID: 718888 ·

BrainSmashR Send message Joined: 7 Apr 02 Posts: 1772 Credit: 384,573 RAC: 0	Message 718889 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 1:01:10 UTC Censorship Sucks T-Shirt TShirt Sirius / CBLDF 2000 Color No No Description: Image of Girl With Banned School Books Sucking Popsicle Wearing Tight, Cropped, Ã¢â‚¬ËœCensorship SucksÃ¢â‚¬â„¢ White T-Shirt http://www.linsner.com/corpus.asp?txtKeyword=censorship+sucks&selOperator=&txtKeyword2=&selType=All&selSearch=Title&selSort=pubName&selOrder=ASC&txtPageSize=50 ID: 718889 ·

Dr. C.E.T.I. Send message Joined: 29 Feb 00 Posts: 16019 Credit: 794,685 RAC: 0	Message 718891 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 1:03:41 UTC Thanks Tracy . . . i was 'worried' i'd get [edited] IF i Posted those links - since it is a site NOT allowed by the Rules . . . BOINC Wiki . . . Science Status Page . . . ID: 718891 ·

Blurf Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 2 Sep 06 Posts: 8962 Credit: 12,678,685 RAC: 0	Message 718892 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 1:04:13 UTC - in response to Message 718888. Pete: see this Presenting Ã¢â‚¬â€œ CENSORSHIP SUCKS ... 384 x 576 - 232k - jpg www.linsner.com Chris got THAT particular image FROM that site and put it into HIS Photobucket Gallery ;)) Richard--the picture itself does not violate the rules--despite who the author is. ID: 718892 ·

Qui-Gon Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11	Message 718893 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 1:04:32 UTC - in response to Message 718876. Not at all. I didn't remove your post (you should know that if you read the moderation notice), but since I quoted your post, my post was hidden too. I edited out what was deemed against the rules, and asked that the other moderator unhide my response, at his discretion. Your meaning was not changed, I only took out your description of an "external dispute". But feel free to back out of you position by claiming that I changed the meaning of your post. I never really expected any of you to apologize or admit fault anyway. I haven't received any moderation notice, only noticed it was gone. Why do you have an obsession about collecting apologies? Oh, come on poopsie, it's good for your soul. When you are wrong, as you so obviously are, a good apology will keep you humble. But I don't really care one way or the other if you apologise, since your statements are generally worthless or laughable. I'm just pointing out to all those who read these threads that your pride has affected your point of view. That makes your arguments, at the least, suspect. ID: 718893 ·

Dr. C.E.T.I. Send message Joined: 29 Feb 00 Posts: 16019 Credit: 794,685 RAC: 0	Message 718894 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 1:06:43 UTC - in response to Message 718892. Pete: see this Presenting Ã¢â‚¬â€œ CENSORSHIP SUCKS ... 384 x 576 - 232k - jpg www.linsner.com Chris got THAT particular image FROM that site and put it into HIS Photobucket Gallery ;)) Richard--the picture itself does not violate the rules--despite who the author is. well - i guess that's it then - IF the Rules allow THAT - then it's rather obvious that i don't understand the Rules (or the Grammatical sense of the Word - Rules) ;)) > i have to make dinner for mi lady - gotta roll . . . BOINC Wiki . . . Science Status Page . . . ID: 718894 ·

Qui-Gon Volunteer tester Send message Joined: 15 May 99 Posts: 2940 Credit: 19,199,902 RAC: 11	Message 718895 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 1:15:01 UTC - in response to Message 718894. Last modified: 27 Feb 2008, 1:15:21 UTC [snip] well - i guess that's it then - IF the Rules allow THAT - then it's rather obvious that i don't understand the Rules (or the Grammatical sense of the Word - Rules) ;)) Agreed. ID: 718895 ·

BrainSmashR Send message Joined: 7 Apr 02 Posts: 1772 Credit: 384,573 RAC: 0	Message 718896 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 1:19:39 UTC Last modified: 27 Feb 2008, 1:20:01 UTC I too fail to see how the image violates any rules....but then again, I don't see how my previous signature with rotating images of women in bathing suits violated the rules either...but that smack down came from further up the ladder than the mods... ID: 718896 ·

Jeffrey Send message Joined: 21 Nov 03 Posts: 4793 Credit: 26,029 RAC: 0	Message 718905 - Posted: 27 Feb 2008, 1:45:42 UTC - in response to Message 718880. I see a drawing of a young girl with a lollipop I thought we determined that the 'object of controversy' was a popsicle... ;) It may not be 1984 but George Orwell sure did see the future . . . ID: 718905 ·

©2024 University of California

SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.