my wife cheated on me when i was in morocco

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I want to know why it's okay to show "native" breasts and #######' (ie national geographic), and it's not the same as a playboy/girl pinup. Make jokes if you want, but this is a serious question. Like, if you were to see two pictures side by side on a billboard... one of a bare-breasted pygmy woman from africa, and the other of say, janet jackson... would you be offended (cover your kids' eyes?) by one, and not the other? What's that about?

-mike

I thought about the kids eyes thing but I really couldn't come up with an opinion. Don't have kids, and have never really given it any thought. If anything, maybe I'd cover their eyes just to avoid having to tell them what it is that they saw! It also brings to mind life in India, where poor women publicly bathe under municipal taps (wearing a thin sari, nothing underneath, nothing left to the imagination) and publicly take dumps along railroad tracks early in the morning. Kids see it and are not (as far as I know) mentally damaged because of it. I guess I don't see the big deal.

if those people are coming on here for info they just need to stay out of off-topic, if they are worried about offending someone, it is not like thre are naked pictures all over this site....

When I was a newbie, I used to find a lot of information on here via google. And if you search by keyword like Google does, a lot of hits will bring you to off-topic.

And there don't have to be many .. just one, loaded on a browser at the wrong place and time, can do plenty damage.

Edited February 27, 2006 by Agent Smith

[mikeize 0]

On that note, AJ... I think you would have a pretty good chance of explaining the situation to your boss... provided that they don't have just as much of a problem with you doing non-work related surfing, period.

I did see somewhere that this guy is developing special glasses that (when used with a kind of encryption software) only allow those wearing them to see what's on the screen. Stay tuned, your troubles may be over!

-mike

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

On that note, AJ... I think you would have a pretty good chance of explaining the situation to your boss... provided that they don't have just as much of a problem with you doing non-work related surfing, period.

Apples and oranges, mike. No one can reasonably claim that my surfing non-work related content creates a "hostile work environment" for them.

I did see somewhere that this guy is developing special glasses that (when used with a kind of encryption software) only allow those wearing them to see what's on the screen. Stay tuned, your troubles may be over!

LOL

Edited February 27, 2006 by Agent Smith

[mikeize 0]

On that note, AJ... I think you would have a pretty good chance of explaining the situation to your boss... provided that they don't have just as much of a problem with you doing non-work related surfing, period.

Apples and oranges, mike. No one can reasonably claim that my surfing non-work related content creates a "hostile work environment" for them.

[

oh, they'll find a way! lol. Like your slacking has caused them so much stress that their hair and teeth fell out, or something like that.

-mike

[Welshcookie 17]

if those people are coming on here for info they just need to stay out of off-topic, if they are worried about offending someone, it is not like thre are naked pictures all over this site....

When I was a newbie, I used to find a lot of information on here via google. And if you search by keyword like Google does, a lot of hits will bring you to off-topic.

And there don't have to be many .. just one, loaded on a browser at the wrong place and time, can do plenty damage.

I am not really seeing your issue...is it that you are concerned that ppl at work who view VJ might get into trouble for some risque pic (although there are very few) or newbies that are looking for info that might get a bad impression of the site?

From what I hear one 'shouldn't' be surfing the net if non-work related and is risking trouble anyway, afterall there is plenty of images that can pop up while surfing....and if the latter there plenty things on OT that can give a 'bad impression' without a few titty shots or a made up pic of a guy with a minute willy.....

I dunno....maybe it's time for some censorship on OT.....and I am not being sarcastic when I say that....I am interested in what ppl think....

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

if those people are coming on here for info they just need to stay out of off-topic, if they are worried about offending someone, it is not like thre are naked pictures all over this site....

When I was a newbie, I used to find a lot of information on here via google. And if you search by keyword like Google does, a lot of hits will bring you to off-topic.

And there don't have to be many .. just one, loaded on a browser at the wrong place and time, can do plenty damage.

I am not really seeing your issue...is it that you are concerned that ppl at work who view VJ might get into trouble for some risque pic (although there are very few) or newbies that are looking for info that might get a bad impression of the site?

From what I hear one 'shouldn't' be surfing the net if non-work related and is risking trouble anyway, afterall there is plenty of images that can pop up while surfing....and if the latter there plenty things on OT that can give a 'bad impression' without a few titty shots or a made up pic of a guy with a minute willy.....

I dunno....maybe it's time for some censorship on OT.....and I am not being sarcastic when I say that....I am interested in what ppl think....

I've already explained my point. It's about maximizing the site's accessibility. Anyway, I'm not going to repeat it all again.

[Welshcookie 17]

I've already explained my point. It's about maximizing the site's accessibility. Anyway, I'm not going to repeat it all again.

Ok....but what about the idea of censoring certain stuff on OT so everyone is aware that it is a no-no to post certain images/topics on OT?

[Marilyn. 340]

I've already explained my point. It's about maximizing the site's accessibility. Anyway, I'm not going to repeat it all again.

Ok....but what about the idea of censoring certain stuff on OT so everyone is aware that it is a no-no to post certain images/topics on OT?

the thing is if we start censoring stuff, where is it going to stop??

[Welshcookie 17]

I've already explained my point. It's about maximizing the site's accessibility. Anyway, I'm not going to repeat it all again.

Ok....but what about the idea of censoring certain stuff on OT so everyone is aware that it is a no-no to post certain images/topics on OT?

the thing is if we start censoring stuff, where is it going to stop??

I remember a time back when a member posted a pic of a mother dressing her child up as a suicide bomber....I voiced my distain yet was told by another member that he should be allowed to post whatever image he wanted....

Edited February 27, 2006 by welshcookie

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

Ok....but what about the idea of censoring certain stuff on OT so everyone is aware that it is a no-no to post certain images/topics on OT?

I don't have a problem with that.

An alternative would be to make OT inaccessible to non-registered users. Registered users can block images so letting them into OT (with a warning that content may not be safe for work and/or if children are around) would be allright.

the thing is if we start censoring stuff, where is it going to stop??

Most mainstream media outlets self-censor all the time. It really isn't that radical a concept.

Edited February 27, 2006 by Agent Smith

[pax 0]

I am not going to read all 18 pages of this thread, but wouldn't it make the most sense if we could all agree to not post images that we wouldn't want our own boss or young child to see?

[faith 0]

I am not going to read all 18 pages of this thread, but wouldn't it make the most sense if we could all agree to not post images that we wouldn't want our own boss or young child to see?

problem with that is not all of us agree on what is appropriate for our bosses or young children to see...

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

I am not going to read all 18 pages of this thread, but wouldn't it make the most sense if we could all agree to not post images that we wouldn't want our own boss or young child to see?

problem with that is not all of us agree on what is appropriate for our bosses or young children to see...

Most HR departments in the US are quite clear on what kind of content may approach the bar of creating a "hostile work environment".

As for your children, if the New York Times (print) and CNN and Channel 13 News and the rest of the mainstream media can self-censor in a manner that is acceptable to most, I don't think it's that hard. Not a radical concept.

[Mirorgate 0]

I want to know why it's okay to show "native" breasts and #######' (ie national geographic), and it's not the same as a playboy/girl pinup. Make jokes if you want, but this is a serious question. Like, if you were to see two pictures side by side on a billboard... one of a bare-breasted pygmy woman from africa, and the other of say, janet jackson... would you be offended (cover your kids' eyes?) by one, and not the other? What's that about?

-mike

One is a fact of life. The other life in fact.

Playboy <> National Geographic by any stretch of the imagination, and neither does it solely display breasts in a sexual provactive manner. It is different and therefore falls into a different category, even under the porn laws. Agree or disagree.. it is yours to decide. But please keep apples to apples. NG I know I could get pictures inside of bare breasted women if an article is covering deep amazonian tribes or the like. But that isn't 100% gaurantee.. unlike PB or such mags as that which is gauranteed to show them.

As to AS's point, he stressed it fairly well. Self censorship can and is a good thing here especially if you do not expect to come across rather graphic visuals on a thread that actually by topic has nothing to do with the pic that got removed. And as such he thought he was safe to read article from work, but then obviously couldn't really as it wasnt.

Things are not always as we would have them, but most laws are set to protect the majority who favor them. Well, in theory anyway.

[pax 0]

At least thread starters have the option to label threads as "NOT WORK-SAFE" or somesuch. There's a cartoon website of which I'm fond wherein the creator has done exactly that: certain areas of his site are labeled as "not safe for you-know-where," and those are the areas you know that you might rather enjoy in the privacy of your own home.

I really do think it's common sense. I can't imagine that there's such a wide gap between what the majority of VJers would find appropriate for a general audience and what they would not.

Edited February 27, 2006 by pax