|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 18:48:56 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....I might have had fewer objections - to either image - had the women in them been - you know - hot.
No, not really. |
Dave, take a cold shower and then check out the Huff Post as I advised Dude. A once-in-a-lifetime chance to bone up on 10th century Heroic Poetry and simultaneously ogle a real hottie, dipped in molten gold!
If this doesn't get the Twins a'hummin, I'm going to redact your nomination to replace Brad Pitt as the Worlds Most Sexed Male.
|
 |
|
|
HalfMooner
Dingaling
Philippines
15831 Posts |
Posted - 11/16/2007 : 22:06:48 [Permalink]
|
I read Beowulf, and loved how the monster, Grendel, was hardly described at all. Mainly, we knew of Grendel, and later his mother, by the mutilated bodies left behind. (Very much the same leave-it-to-their-imaginations approach was taken by the makers of "Forbidden Planet," a sci-fi classic from my childhood.)
I never imagined either of the monsters in Beowulf looking like a stripped-down Angelina Jolie.
|
“Biology is just physics that has begun to smell bad.” —HalfMooner
Here's a link to Moonscape News, and one to its Archive. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
 Posted - 11/16/2007 : 22:54:18 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave, take a cold shower and then check out the Huff Post as I advised Dude. A once-in-a-lifetime chance to bone up on 10th century Heroic Poetry and simultaneously ogle a real hottie, dipped in molten gold! |
Real hottie? She's got nice eyes, but I've seen twig-girl naked before, and looking at her now I remain unimpressed. However, I did once have the hots for Arianna Huffington, but it may have been the accent. Or the lingerie. Or the eyes.| If this doesn't get the Twins a'hummin, I'm going to redact your nomination to replace Brad Pitt as the Worlds Most Sexed Male. |
Who the hell nominated me for that? If elected, I will not serve. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 04:43:02 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
A once-in-a-lifetime chance to bone up on 10th century Heroic Poetry and simultaneously ogle a real hottie, dipped in molten gold!
If this doesn't get the Twins a'hummin, I'm going to redact your nomination to replace Brad Pitt as the Worlds Most Sexed Male. |
Assuming any image would have a predictable effect on all us guys a bit much.
If we all liked exactly the same thing, odds are that by now evolutionary processes would've resulted in just that. (Well, maybe not really but I hope I made my point.)
I'll also throw my hat into the ring and say that the original joke was out of place here. I was actually surprised when your first one didn't get any official input.
Personally, it doesn't much bother me, but SFN isn't really the sort of place I expect to see that sort of thing.
|
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 12:46:27 [Permalink]
|
Dave.....
Originally posted by bngbuck
Surely neither you, nor Dave W, nor Dr. Mabuse, nor Marfknox is objecting to the lady's boobies on religious grounds! |
I might have had fewer objections - to either image - had the women in them been - you know - hot.
No, not really. |
In frantic effort to make amends to your connoisseur's taste in female delectation, and the simultaneous need to appease the wrath of Kiljoy, I have seriously edited both images. This is the best I can do with my poor fumblings in Paint! If you want me to fire up the Corel program, it will take me several weeks to figure out how to control the damn thing, but I will attempt to produce an evanescent feminine image that will stun your senses, massage your prostate, and cause the rest of the staff to drop to their knees in supplication to the Born Again Virgin Mary in a Bikini (chaste, of course!)
I don't know if the Forum is really ready for images of this Transcendent nature, however! |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/17/2007 : 13:03:54 [Permalink]
|
Well golly Bill, you have gone to a some trouble to make your pointless point. Okay, pointless point taken.
Are you going to include those pictures in your book? I think you should…
 |
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 - 11/17/2007 : 15:56:11 [Permalink]
|
Kil.....
Excellent idea for my forthcoming masterpiece: Perception, Illustrated |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2007 : 00:29:30 [Permalink]
|
Hmmm ...While it is not a funny joke, I have to comment on a couple of things.
Namely, the nudity charge, the safe for work comment, and the protecting of young readers sensibilities.
1) I thinking to classify the picture as containing nudity is a bit of a stretch. I mean, is it because he's a fireman? Or because the man is showing his nipples? I'm curious if the same standard would have been applied in a different situation. Say, that of a picture of a man, standing on a boat, wearing swimming trunks, and holding ups some pottery he claimed marked the location of the lost continent of Atlantis. Or what about the picture of an Olympic swimmer? Diver? Perhaps the whole "nudity" issue might have been avoided had the man been wearing strategically placed suspenders.
2) The work place concern. On this, and similar forums, many of the members use pseudonyms. Many will admit is is to keep friends, family, and coworkers from knowing of their skeptical, and potentially atheistic, tendencies. Oh, let's face it . . . many don't want others to know they are critical thinkers! Point being that few people would then risk exposure by browsing this site at work. It would just invite comments of "Saaay . . . you're one of them there thinkers!". But say you did browse this site, and that picture came up. I've worked in corporate environments for 30 years, and I cannot think of one where the picture of the fireman would have caused any raised eyebrows, or been considered nudity. More likely, one might get chastised for browsing during work hours . . . or perhaps been asked out by that fit, but single, guy who never dated women.
3) "The children! Think of the children!!" Maybe a legitimate concern . . . if it weren't for the fact that not a scant few months ago many of the posters on this forum made liberal use of four, five, and multiple letters words. Sometimes I had to check to make sure I had not stumbled into some sort of biker forum . . . not that I go searching for those. The point being that even those randy times, never did I encounter the screen with "**WARNING** Here Be Profanity!!" Plus, I may be old, but I remember as far back as my preteens. Never did I linger at the picture in the Sears catalog of the men modeling briefs and think to myself "My, that is offensive!" Nope, I paid scant attention as my fingers feverishly searched for the lingerie sections. Those women!! Talk about obscene!! Just posing there, strutting their bare arms and legs, smiling with nary a care in the world that prepubescent lads my chance to see their bloomers.
Again, I thought the joke to be unimaginative, and far below my estimate pf the poster's sophistication level, to wit I may have to rethink on that matter. But by far the best approach would have been to ignore the post in the hope to dissuade the poster from repeating his tragic mistake.
Goading him into posting progressively more tasteless fare was just plain mean. Further, deliberately manipulating his affront response to further tarnish his intellectual image showed a marked lack of compassion. Never mind that it was of his own doing . . . you just don't do that to people.
Having spoken my piece, I can only hope we can put this sordid affair behind us, and with heads held high, struggle toward a more dignified future.
ejd
|
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2007 : 02:53:18 [Permalink]
|
ejdalise.....
Welcome! We have met before, and I assure you I have no doubts about your level of sophistication!
Surely you realize the 'nudity charge' you mention was directed at the original uncensored image of the almost nude dark-haired lady hitchhiker? And the reference to the "first one" refers to a buxom blonde (full bikini, tho!) in an earlier post of mine in the Humor folder - which you can find under the subject "Position Wanted" on the second page of Humor topics. This admittedly coarse joke will also offend your Dignity and Taste sensibilities, but you are a big boy and I know you'll muddle through somehow!
The censoring and idiotic replacement of the hitchhiker with a societally acceptable male image were merely my commentary on what I view as the vacuous stupidity of left-over Victorianism in this Christian Nation to whom Sam Harris writes letters!
Dave, Dr. Mabuse, and Kil were all properly concerned about the threat that full frontal female nudity posed to the Internet legality of their website. And, of course, I can't fault them for that! Just as you and I must play their game by their rules, so must SFN abide by whatever propriety limits are set by Internet censors!
They are right, of course. I was just playing around hoping to get a rise from some on the legitimate issues of "taste", "vulgarity", "sexually offensive material" and the like. I did not think of the legal consequences, which are quite real!
And, as several pointed out, the Forum is open to children over 13. Another legitimate issue for debate, but unfortunately pictures such as these leaves SFN's ass totally uncovered for "pornography to minors" charges from whatever branch of the morals and ethics police enforces such blue laws.
Anyway, I was totally out of line, I got a bit of what I was looking for in controversy, I was properly chastised, and I finished the affair by making a statement with a new image that some (I would wager, most) understood! I realize that the fact that you came to the party too late to view the original set-up, makes the whole thing appear a little senseless!
And now, you know the rest of the story!
Hope to have another battle royale a la Skepticality with you, sometime, ej |
|
|
|
ejdalise
Skeptic Friend
USA
50 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2007 : 11:25:00 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by bngbuck
ejdalise.....
Welcome! We have met before, and I assure you I have no doubts about your level of sophistication! |
I be but a simple country bumpkin . . .
Originally posted by bngbuck
Surely you realize the 'nudity charge' you mention was directed at the original uncensored image of the almost nude dark-haired lady hitchhiker? |
As you mention later on, I am late to the party, and was therefore spared the horror.
Originally posted by bngbuck
This admittedly coarse joke will also offend your Dignity and Taste sensibilities, but you are a big boy and I know you'll muddle through somehow! |
It's unlikely the joke will offend either, as I have a high level of tolerance for many things. But I appreciate your concern, and will definitively check out examples of what you consider funny enough to share.
Originally posted by bngbuck
Dave, Dr. Mabuse, and Kil were all properly concerned about the threat that full frontal female nudity posed to the Internet legality of their website. And, of course, I can't fault them for that! Just as you and I must play their game by their rules, so must SFN abide by whatever propriety limits are set by Internet censors! |
I don't fault them either, although I'm not aware they, or we, were playing a game. I just pointed out the incongruity of being worried about the potential impact of any image versus that of words. I have heard the forum has been been cleaned up, so perhaps this concern is part of the effort to raise the overall level of discourse.
Originally posted by bngbuck
They are right, of course. I was just playing around hoping to get a rise . . . |
WHAT?!? Say it ain't so!! Not you too! . . . are you sure the tutelage effort you're involved in is not flowing both ways?
Originally posted by bngbuck
Anyway, I was totally out of line, I got a bit of what I was looking for in controversy, I was properly chastised, and I finished the affair by making a statement with a new image that some (I would wager, most) understood! I realize that the fact that you came to the party too late to view the original set-up, makes the whole thing appear a little senseless! |
It still appears senseless. The part about "looking for controversy" especially stands out. Then again I have not reached levels of wisdom associated with more advanced age ... although I'm starting to question the premise behind that assumption.
Originally posted by bngbuck
Hope to have another battle royale a la Skepticality with you, sometime, ej
|
Alas, I am more considerate of fellow posters these days. While we could certainly duel via e-mails, it has none of the attraction of a public skirmish. After all, we both live for the audience. As such, the adversary is not much more than a convenient vehicle for showing off.
But as I mentioned, it has been pointed out to me that many find such displays distasteful, and distracting from whatever topic is being covered. I find this surprising because while I cannot speak for your efforts, I always found my own writing witty, elegant, and and chock full of entertainment value. Again I learn not everyone shares my weird refined sense of humor. |
--- Disperser ---
Winning enemies and aggravating friends since 1953 |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2007 : 15:41:02 [Permalink]
|
ej.....
| I don't fault them either, although I'm not aware they, or we, were playing a game. I just pointed out the incongruity of being worried about the potential impact of any image versus that of words. I have heard the forum has been been cleaned up, so perhaps this concern is part of the effort to raise the overall level of discourse. |
Awareness comes with education: Try here for elucidation.
Due to stentorian efforts by Dave and Kil, the Forum is largely clear of schoolyard insult shouting. It still has a remarkably permissive position regarding profane or obscene language, depending upon context which, in my view, is excellently moderated here! The f... you's, etc. have properly been prohibited. But godfuckingdamn christian fundamentalists! is pretty much allowed!
The concern about images that could be construed as porn or destructive to young minds (female nudity) are banned for their potential affront to Internet expression control authorities!| It still appears senseless. The part about "looking for controversy" especially stands out. Then again I have not reached levels of wisdom associated with more advanced age ... although I'm starting to question the premise behind that assumption. |
Senseless is as senseless does, and if that is indeed what it does to you, Je apologie! Looking for controversy seem inherent in much of the work that goes on in this forum and others, to me it is an important part of most subjects I bring to examination! It is difficult in the humor folder!| But as I mentioned, it has been pointed out to me that many find such displays distasteful, and distracting from whatever topic is being covered. I find this surprising because while I cannot speak for your efforts, I always found my own writing witty, elegant, and and chock full of entertainment value. Again I learn not everyone shares my weird refined sense of humor. |
I am certain judgment will arrive soon!
|
|
|
|
Dr. Mabuse
Septic Fiend
Sweden
9687 Posts |
Posted - 11/22/2007 : 17:13:22 [Permalink]
|
I prefer not to view pornography, not because I I'm prude, but because I'm not a voyeur. I'd rather spend "quality time" with a real person than watch other people doing it.
However, I do appreciate senual pictures. Especially artfully done.
Also, I do think the Christian Thought-police needs to be fought. If that is done through making people insensitive by flooding people with borderline pics, and convincing them that it's not that awful and such, I'm all for it.
But that is a mission in and of itself. And when it starts interfering with Skeptic Friends Network's mission statement, one of them has to give in. And that is in this case nudity.
Public libraries, schools, Internet cafés, and companies that are concerned with questionable content may (how ever much we think it is ridiculous) decide to register SFN in their content filter. If that happens we cannot accomplish our mission.
It's a question of priorities.
|
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. |
|
|
|
bngbuck
SFN Addict
USA
2437 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2007 : 13:47:39 [Permalink]
|
Dr. Mabuse.....
SFN's mission is as posted on the Home page:| The mission of the Skeptic Friends Network is to promote skepticism, critical thinking, science and logic as the best methods for evaluating all claims of fact, and we invite active participation by our members to create a skeptical community with a wide variety of viewpoints and expertise. |
Your statement...But that is a mission in and of itself. And when it starts interfering with Skeptic Friends Network's mission statement, one of them has to give in. And that is in this case nudity.
Public libraries, schools, Internet cafés, and companies that are concerned with questionable content may (how ever much we think it is ridiculous) decide to register SFN in their content filter. If that happens we cannot accomplish our mission. |
.....seems to imply that the mission of SFN is centered or primarily focused on the Forums reaching Libraries, Schools, Internet Cafes, and Companies!
Is that true? |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2007 : 17:26:57 [Permalink]
|
Bill:
.....seems to imply that the mission of SFN is centered or primarily focused on the Forums reaching Libraries, Schools, Internet Cafes, and Companies!
Is that true? |
Don't be silly.
Because our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching the largest audience we can, it would be counter productive for us to have our content banned from any of those places, even if they represent only a fraction of our readers.
And Bill, I suspect that you knew exactly what Mab meant…
|
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 11/23/2007 : 18:29:20 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
Because our mission is to promote critical thinking by reaching the largest audience we can... |
With things as they are, we're probably missing out on that segment of society that would be interested in skepticism if and only if it comes along with soft-core pornography.
Perhaps if the SFN ever turns a profit, we can use the money to produce videos of people reading entries from The Skeptic's Dictionary while having sex, and capture that last small section of the populace. There are, as of this writing, 520 entries. I'm sure we can think up that many (and more) combinations of positions and fetishes.
Think about it... "Ah, Saturday night and the girlfriend/wife is out of town. I think I'll watch Jenna Jameson read 'The Regressive Fallacy'."
Obviously, we'll need Bob Carroll's permission for this. |
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Unbelievable Accident !
