Girls in... threads but a no swearing plicy, makes no sense.
Comments
-
That's just silly. Clearly there is a market for off topic discussions. Those sections are also clearly not open to no-holds-barred discussions. You're telling me that between the moderators, web designers and content editors you can't decide on what is acceptable content of a quasi sexual nature and what isn't?supersonic wrote:The issues raised in this thread have been forwarded to the Admin and Mods and are under discussion.
Further issues have arisen though: if these forums are purely for the pursuit of cycling, should we ban all off topic areas and threads ie EVERY post must be cycling related?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
You have a point. You can to some degree.Veronese68 wrote:
How do you know if they are there as a lifestyle choice or because they have fallen on really bad times and felt they had no option? Do you do a background check and drug test them?DonDaddyD wrote:Furthermore not all women are forced into activities that revolve around or engage in sex (including selling it). Some choose and some enjoy watching and participating. In short you can go into a strip club, watch porn or a live show, enjoy yourself and not be degrading or derogatory to the female performer in front of you.
It's not like a free range chicken that you can check your particular choice in smut has been ethically raised.
But what I'm trying to say (which may have been poorly put) is that liking these things isn't immediately bad, evil and 'the devil'. The attitudes that spawn out of some who engage in these activities is the problem. Some often forget that the obect of their desires is actually a person.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Quite. If this is coming from a mod, that's really quite a worrying mindset. So is has to be Anything goes v Cycling onlyDonDaddyD wrote:
That's just silly. Clearly there is a market for off topic discussions. Those sections are also clearly not open to no-holds-barred discussions. You're telling me that between the moderators, web designers and content editors you can't decide on what is acceptable content of a quasi sexual nature and what isn't?supersonic wrote:The issues raised in this thread have been forwarded to the Admin and Mods and are under discussion.
Further issues have arisen though: if these forums are purely for the pursuit of cycling, should we ban all off topic areas and threads ie EVERY post must be cycling related?0 -
I can't read anything you say without hearing your speech about crying through your genitals, and Jamie Oliver jumping through the air.15peter20 wrote:Quite. If this is coming from a mod, that's really quite a worrying mindset. So is has to be Anything goes v Cycling only0 -
Don't say you weren't warned....On page 1 of this thread I wrote:Careful what you wish for DDDDD; you're asking for consistency on censorship and there's only way that can go.
Either we're happy to have a bit of naughty corner with a tacit acceptance that it's the equivalent of where the 6th form go for a fag & share of a jazz mag, or we have a block on what looks to me like some v mild titillation. I haven't trawled the whole collection of Girls In threads as it all gets a bit samey after the first half dozen, but there does seem [to me at least] an element in this discussion of which blokes can prove their support for the ladeez the most.
Me? I know it's there, these threads, I'm not that bothered by them. Complaining about things you don't much fancy for on the internet seems to me to be a pretty fruitless occupation.0 -
Sigh - OK here goes.
(From Girls in Lycra) I don't mind this:DonDaddyD wrote:The standard in this thread has dropped. Pick it up boys.
It's been posted but as a bench mark, here she is again:
http://dhreno.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/lizhatch.jpg
thisDonDaddyD wrote:Aggieboy wrote:
WOW! I mean really, WOW!
When you see people look like that (and you know you can't have them) you know life isn't fair.... because it just isn't.
WOW!
or thisDonDaddyD wrote:Another one of Power Girl
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3036/271 ... c003c0.jpg
Wonder Woman
http://doubleviking.cachefly.net/images ... exy-13.jpg
I believe the above to be at least decent and good natured if a little sexually charged.
(From Girls in realistic situations) I don't think this is necessary or productiveCornerblock wrote:
or even thisAggieboy wrote:
Now tell me there is no difference.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
Well put.CiB wrote:Don't say you weren't warned....On page 1 of this thread I wrote:Careful what you wish for DDDDD; you're asking for consistency on censorship and there's only way that can go.
Either we're happy to have a bit of naughty corner with a tacit acceptance that it's the equivalent of where the 6th form go for a fag & share of a jazz mag, or we have a block on what looks to me like some v mild titillation. I haven't trawled the whole collection of Girls In threads as it all gets a bit samey after the first half dozen, but there does seem [to me at least] an element in this discussion of which blokes can prove their support for the ladeez the most.
On a related note, looks like DDD might not win any popularity contests over in Cake Stop ;-) (edited for inability to write a full sentence before second cup of cofee...)"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
I actually think it is pathetic that Eke and Jonny_Trousers encouraged other users to flame me.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
I think that DDD's comment with pics is fair, but the comment a few pages back about it being a public place and the analogy with Starbucks is horse sh*t. The threads are clearly labled and it would appear that everyone who doesn't like them knows what's in them. If you don't like them, don't look.
It's not a case of passing smutty pictures around Starbucks, more a case of leaving a clearly labled book on the table and letting people decide whether to read it or not.
Anyway, if you're offended by Cakestop (which is an OT forum, ie not dedicated to cycling), for christ's sake, don't look at Crudcatcher !!!Science adjusts it’s beliefs based on what’s observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved0 -
I'm inclined to agree.CiB wrote:Me? I know it's there, these threads, I'm not that bothered by them. Complaining about things you don't much fancy for on the internet seems to me to be a pretty fruitless occupation.
I also agree with Johnny_Trousers here, DDD's serialisation of his GCSE essay on women's lib is hilarious
He scrapes a pass, but only because he sucks up to teach.
Velo, I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone on this thread defending the kind of degrading posts that are on the Girl's in thread. But I think the attitudes you've expressed on this thread are drifting scarily close to the "all men are potential rapists" opinion.
Ultimately it all boils down to discretion and respect, and I think all of us here have similar opinions on where lines are to be drawn here and we agree that these were crossed on some posts in Cake Stop. I'm not sure what other disagreement there is here? I don't work directly with vulnerable women in the way you do, but I work for an organisation that does and I understand where you're coming from. But you can't relate the misogyny and violence you've observed professionally to posts on this forum without raising a few hackles...0 -
@DDD in general I agree, trouble is though for each person the line on what is and is not acceptable or offensive is in a different place. My understanding is the line here is drawn at no nudity, at least if the posting rules on crud catcher are anything to go by. That being said there is a naked par of breast in girls in rainwear..... Could I suggest you write your take on an acceptable use policy and we can then debate that?--
Chris
Genesis Equilibrium - FCN 3/4/50 -
You really didn't need to post these clearly NSFW pictures to prove your point.DonDaddyD wrote:Sigh - OK here goes.0 -
Thanks for being so patronising. Still, it's ironic that considering my hilarious 'GCSE essay'.notsoblue wrote:
You really didn't need to post these clearly NSFW pictures to prove your point.DonDaddyD wrote:Sigh - OK here goes.Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
supersonic wrote:The issues raised in this thread have been forwarded to the Admin and Mods and are under discussion.
Further issues have arisen though: if these forums are purely for the pursuit of cycling, should we ban all off topic areas and threads ie EVERY post must be cycling related?
That is daft.
First, no one has saidif these forums are purely for the pursuit of cycling
They're not, nor do they have to be. If you want to see an example of a forum that is, and strict moderation to enforce that rule, have a look at weight weenies. There is a wealth of useful information there about relatively narrow subject matter. To that extent it is a useful site. But the speed at which off topic (and you don't have to stray far to go off topic) threads get locked and deleted is ludicrous.
Secondly, no one is suggesting you ban all off topic areas and threads. That's obvious. It *should* be pretty easy to work out work is clearly over the line.
Third, one gets a strong feeling that the admin and mods are pretty sympathetic to the girls picture threads. Or perhaps are keen to retain the user base that comes with them - I don't know which.0 -
Yes thanks for posting those and not putting a warning, yes I am being patronising.0
-
So you're agreeing that it's a bit like walking into Starbucks and finding jazz mags littered around the place - or maybe porn on the lower shelves of WHSMiths? Nice!MattC59 wrote:I think that DDD's comment with pics is fair, but the comment a few pages back about it being a public place and the analogy with Starbucks is horse sh*t. The threads are clearly labled and it would appear that everyone who doesn't like them knows what's in them. If you don't like them, don't look.
It's not a case of passing smutty pictures around Starbucks, more a case of leaving a clearly labled book on the table and letting people decide whether to read it or not.
Anyway, if you're offended by Cakestop (which is an OT forum, ie not dedicated to cycling), for christ's sake, don't look at Crudcatcher !!!0 -
Nah, not patronising, or ironic, I just try and avoid browsing threads that feature pictures of women sitting on toilets and having sex when I'm at work.DonDaddyD wrote:0 -
0
-
Ahem...apologies.Greg66 wrote:0 -
notsoblue wrote:
Ahem...apologies.Greg66 wrote:
S'okay. Someone will be along soon with a damp squid moment no doubt...0 -
How did everyone manage to miss the most vital point in all of this? You compared half a titty and some lycra to foul language and that itself doesn't make sense.
All of the "female appreciation" (:O) threads are titled as such, "Girls in _______" there is no question that when you click the link,that you are probably going to see something related to the title. It then boils down rather simply. If you don't like the thread title,chances are you won't like what's in it. There is nobody to blame but yourself. Maybe such threads would do better with *NSFW" warnings in the titles and maybe if bodyparts and barely there clothing offends you,stay away from magazines,tv,outside,a mirror or indeed the cheese counter at Sainsburys.
Whereas, a casual f*ck or other swearword/derogatory/racial term in the middle of "Oh isn't the sun lovely today" type thread, there isn't such a warning,you don't know it's there until you've read it.
Don't try to readdress balance when you aren't actually balancing the options out nor offering solutions. Do you want to remove any talk that isn't about bikes in some fashion? Many forums inc this one do rely heavily on allowance of off-topic stuff to bring readers/users back. You would find that if every post made here in one day had to be cycling relative,it wouldn't take long before the forum was dead.
Tackle the swearing(which honestly would require more mods) not something entirely different to make yourself feel better about it.0 -
hehe my plans working - I paid DDD in 'imported' Thai DVD's - to direct people from the Girls in.... to my munters thread. well ddd, it's all going smoothly...
The dissenter is every human being at those moments of his life when he resigns
momentarily from the herd and thinks for himself.0 -
Thanks for editing your post btw.DonDaddyD wrote:0 -
"There's a shortage of perfect breasts in this world, t'would be a pity to damage yours."0 -
T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:How did everyone manage to miss the most vital point in all of this? You compared half a titty and some lycra to foul language and that itself doesn't make sense.
Does it not? Why is it sexual content, foul language and violence are grouped together in film and audio certification?
If one form of adult content is allowed then why not others? Whose ever hear of a porn with no swearing? :roll:Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
All the porn you watch features swearing?DonDaddyD wrote:T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:How did everyone manage to miss the most vital point in all of this? You compared half a titty and some lycra to foul language and that itself doesn't make sense.
Does it not? Why is it sexual content, foul language and violence are grouped together in film and audio certification?
If one form of adult content is allowed then why not others? Whose ever hear of a porn with no swearing? :roll:0 -
-
DonDaddyD wrote:T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:How did everyone manage to miss the most vital point in all of this? You compared half a titty and some lycra to foul language and that itself doesn't make sense.
Does it not? Why is it sexual content, foul language and violence are grouped together in film and audio certification?
If one form of adult content is allowed then why not others? Whose ever hear of a porn with no swearing? :roll:
This is a forum,not film and audio certification.
Swearing is adult content? How out of touch with todays yoof ar you?0 -
Did watch.notsoblue wrote:
All the porn you watch features swearing?DonDaddyD wrote:T.M.H.N.E.T wrote:How did everyone manage to miss the most vital point in all of this? You compared half a titty and some lycra to foul language and that itself doesn't make sense.
Does it not? Why is it sexual content, foul language and violence are grouped together in film and audio certification?
If one form of adult content is allowed then why not others? Whose ever hear of a porn with no swearing? :roll:
Have you ever seen a porn where the woman says "make sweet passionate love to me?" or is she more likely to include the word f*ck?Food Chain number = 4
A true scalp is not only overtaking someone but leaving them stopped at a set of lights. As you, who have clearly beaten the lights, pummels nothing but the open air ahead. ~ 'DondaddyD'. Player of the Unspoken Game0 -
This discussion has been closed.
