|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2010 : 04:11:47 [Permalink]
|
Emma! Welcome back! I feared we'd lost you due to our various personality defects. Delighted to see that it ain't so.
As to the underwear thing, a lot of guys, including straight ones, like and wear women's skivvies. And some of either gender wear none at all, cleverly avoiding the whole, sticky question.
Each to his/her own, eh?
Anyhow, it's great to see you back and we're wishing the best for you and your cherished hard drive. I've lost several and know the feeling. Now I've got McAfee and have had no problems since installing it a couple of years ago.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 08/09/2010 07:13:30 |
 |
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
 Posted - 08/09/2010 : 11:08:33 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Emma! Welcome back! I feared we'd lost you due to our various personality defects. Delighted to see that it ain't so.
As to the underwear thing, a lot of guys, including straight ones, like and wear women's skivvies. And some of either gender wear none at all, cleverly avoiding the whole, sticky question.
Each to his/her own, eh?
Anyhow, it's great to see you back and we're wishing the best for you and your cherished hard drive. I've lost several and know the feeling. Now I've got McAfee and have had no problems since installing it a couple of years ago.
|
And now you know why we call him "filthy"!
On a side note, yep. No trouble with McAfee.
|
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/10/2010 : 00:39:39 [Permalink]
|
Welcome back, Starring_Emma!
I really hope you stay around this time. |
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
Starring_Emma
New Member
4 Posts |
Posted - 08/21/2010 : 16:37:37 [Permalink]
|
My new panties came in the mail today! pretty cool!
[Photo deleted. This isn't a forum for jail-bait exhibitionists. - Dave W.] |
|
|
|
Starring_Emma
New Member
4 Posts |
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2010 : 02:27:03 [Permalink]
|
That youtube link should be handled with care. Though it does not display any graphic imagery, the subject discussed is not work-safe. The video should be if not adult-rated, at least parental-guided.
|
Dr. Mabuse - "When the going gets tough, the tough get Duct-tape..."
Dr. Mabuse whisper.mp3
"Equivocation is not just a job, for a creationist it's a way of life..." Dr. Mabuse
Support American Troops in Iraq:
Send them unarmed civilians for target practice..
Collateralmurder. |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2010 : 02:52:53 [Permalink]
|
| I say troll. Do I get a prize now? |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/27/2010 : 03:09:59 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by tomk80
I say troll. Do I get a prize now?
|
A google will show that our Emma has been banned from other fora. I'd wondered why; now I know.
Of course, other fora have much more tender and delicate sensibilities than ourselves -- their panties get in a wad a lot quicker. It's easy to get kicked from them, but it takes a lot real effort to get the boot from here, and that's a good thing. Thus far, she seems harmless enough.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
| Edited by - filthy on 08/27/2010 03:12:42 |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 08/27/2010 : 03:26:09 [Permalink]
|
What's interesting here is all the attention this inconsequential, little thread is getting. 1400+ is a lot of hits for a mere three-pager with no controversial content.
I wonder.....
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
emsby
Skeptic Friend
76 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2010 : 07:34:54 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Zebra
This Zebra is XX, also. (Well, I assume so, from my phenotype. I've never been karyotyped, to my knowledge.)
It's just that every time I mention my gender, the discussion in that thread comes to a screeching halt, so (it seems) I've been assumed by most to be XY.
|
I am also of the female species and promise to be around to discuss all sorts of womanly things with both of you, like pink ponies and nail polish and such. |
Tongue-tied and twisted, just an earthbound misfit, I. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2010 : 18:02:16 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse......
| That youtube link should be handled with care. Though it does not display any graphic imagery, the subject discussed is not work-safe. The video should be if not adult-rated, at least parental-guided. |
I have never worked in a supervised office environment. I am curious about your comment (which I have seen posted here many times by others in other threads referring to - possibly sexually graphic - material.) What, exactly, is meant by "work safe"?
I more or less understand your reference to "parental-guided", although I think this itself is a topic worthy of discussion here at sometime in the future. Right now, I am curious as to how it affects adult readers.
To refer specifically to the pretty squishy soft porn that the trollette Emma has been posting and attempting to post here; what is the authority ethos that prohibits such adolescent silliness from being read by adults? Is it a religious proscription, or rather a position of "we" (those who own the office or the website) "know what is good and not good" for you folks that work or read here?
Or is there Swedish and American law that applies to racy, suggestive, or even outright pornography appearing on certain websites? Does it require licensing or some such govenmental control? Or is all strictly an effort to keep "children" (needs definition) from seeing such images or text?
Dave speedily removed a photograph posted on SFN by the person calling themself "Emma". Apparently it was offensive, at least to Dave But was it illegal? ...or immoral?...or just distasteful? Or what?
Or perhaps all of this de facto censorship is a matter of maintaining "good taste". If that is true, who is, or are, the arbiter(s) of what constitutes acceptable and unacceptable images and narrative; and what is the established law and/or regulation that guides such censors in their judgment?
Anyone who surfs considerably knows that there is an enormous amount of sexually related material on the Internet - ranging from the slightly suggestive all the way to, and includung, total absolute hard pornography for pornography's sake. Is there a spectrum of acceptability that Forum Moderators and Office Managers, movie censors, and god knows who else use to guide their censorship?
I am not asking these questions in any kind of pejorative context. I am unaware of what the specific parameters relating to posting sexual or quasi-sexual material on specific websites; or posting on the Internet in general. I've really only been involved in Internet posting for five or six years, and I certainly am still something of a novice.
Several years ago I posted a graphic image in SFN's Humor forum. It clearly showed a woman's bared breasts, which was the point of the humor. I was severely criticized by several moderators and members for this transgression at that time. I sort of understood that this type of graphic sexual imagery was a serious threat to SFN's continued "legality" as an Internet site. I got seriously chewed out by all of the powers that be, but I never fully understood the full context and all the nuances of this issue.
Does it have something to do with what's "wrong" and what's "right"?
I would truly appreciate an explanation of these cultural mores, as they apply to "the workplace"; and also as they apply to a freethinker's Forum, such as SFN I solicit comment from anyone and everyone who may have some interest in this matter. Naturally I welcome the comments of the owners of this website - Dave, Kil, and @tomic.
Thanks for your consideration!
|
|
|
|
the_ignored
SFN Addict
2562 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2010 : 18:36:23 [Permalink]
|
Wait, did someone not say that her mother was watching these forums? I didn't click on the youtube video, so I've no idea of the true age of this Emma person posting.
Edit: bngbuck, just ask for that picture from him in a PM...you know you want to see it! |
>From: enuffenuff@fastmail.fm
(excerpt follows):
> I'm looking to teach these two bastards a lesson they'll never forget.
> Personal visit by mates of mine. No violence, just a wee little chat.
>
> **** has also committed more crimes than you can count with his
> incitement of hatred against a religion. That law came in about 2007
> much to ****'s ignorance. That is fact and his writing will become well
> know as well as him becoming a publicly known icon of hatred.
>
> Good luck with that fuckwit. And Reynold, fucking run, and don't stop.
> Disappear would be best as it was you who dared to attack me on my
> illness knowing nothing of the cause. You disgust me and you are top of
> the list boy. Again, no violence. Just regular reminders of who's there
> and visits to see you are behaving. Nothing scary in reality. But I'd
> still disappear if I was you.
What brought that on? this. Original posting here.
Another example of this guy's lunacy here. |
| Edited by - the_ignored on 08/27/2010 18:43:28 |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2010 : 19:16:42 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave speedily removed a photograph posted on SFN by the person calling themself "Emma". Apparently it was offensive, at least to Dave But was it illegal? ...or immoral?...or just distasteful? Or what? |
Anything that even gets close to child pornography is unacceptable here, as far as I'm concerned. I am totally uninterested in jail time and/or winding up on a sex offender list for the rest of my life.
Now, it's been argued successfully in court that the owners of a web site that allows random people to post stuff aren't responsible for any copyright violations their users might make, but none of us here on the SFN staff have anywhere near the fiscal ability to afford a lawyer to make that same case for criminal violations like kiddie porn.
The stuff on YouTube probably isn't child porn (I haven't looked at it). Google deals with that sort of thing pretty quickly, it seems. But if it's got a lot of "dirty" words in it, it's not the sort of thing you want blasting out of your cubicle at work (hence "Not Safe for Work," or NSFW). |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 08/27/2010 : 19:23:30 [Permalink]
|
Bill. As you know, we moderate with a pretty light touch, as filthy correctly pointed out. Here's the deal. We don't really have any rules by which we go by in matters like this one. It's up to our moderators, Dave, @ or yours truly to make the call. Pretty much it goes like this. We know it when we see it.
Starring_Emma is an internet troll. She (if she is a she) seems pretty harmless. So we haven't banned her. On the other hand we're not a site where anything goes. Just almost anything.
Bill:
But was it illegal? ...or immoral?...or just distasteful? Or what? |
For us to take action we don't require any of the above justifications. If a post has absolutely nothing to do with our mission statement, it's our prerogative to do what we want with it, which includes deleting it. It's a judgment call that we don't take lightly or make all that often. As luck would have it, we don't have to.
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 08/28/2010 : 00:29:23 [Permalink]
|
the ignored.....
| Edit: bngbuck, just ask for that picture from him in a PM...you know you want to see it! |
ig, as you undoubtedly know, there is a vast selection of the precise material that Dave describes as "kiddie porn" instantly available to anyone with a Google portal. It isn't that I want to see whatever it was that "emma" posted, I truly am confused by reasonably rational people like Dave and Kil being paralyzed by fear of a single image of underwear, or an adult woman's breasts, when there are literally thousands of hard-core Internet sites delivering preposterously explicit streaming video of pre-pubescent children engaging in every type of sex act imaginable - 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. There must be many hundreds of website proprietors being jailed daily, if such laws are actually enforced!
Kil's position makes a little more sense; this site is not intended to be a showcase for pornography, and with the exception of the Humor forum, there are relatively few instances that I can think of where racy images or text are particularly germane to the subject matter under discussion in these forums.
Of course there are many other subjects than pornography that frequently find their way into the forum discussion here and are not questioned even though they may not relate in any way to the "mission statement". For example, "Humor" may or may not invite Critical Thinking, skepticism, logic, etc.
There is no question in my mind that a true troll (like the health food purveyor in today's postings) should be banned from a Skeptic's site. And "Emma" is about as true a troll as could be found anywhere on the Internet.
Banning of any further postings concerning crossdressing with underwear, Zooerastia, or a cosplaying "star" personality would certainly seem appropriate in a skeptic's forum, although there are discussion pages elsewhere where these subjects might be interesting if well written. Kil's point here is well taken and does not seem to be focused on only sexual content introduced into a non-sexual posting context, but on any inconsistent or non-relevant material that a troll might introduce for mere sensationalism.
My inquiry was directed specifically to the rationale of censorship of sexual material simply because it was sexual. Justification of banning or censoring because of inappropriate relevance to the subject matter of a post is clearly justified, as is the banning of subject matter that bears no relationship to the "Mission" of SFN, I guess. The latter must be pretty hard to identify sometimes.
I pretty well had my question answered. Sin lies within the sense of the censurer. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
I wear boys underwear
