| Author | Message | ||
     Peter |
11. "Baby on Board" tags There was one kicking around Australia for a while looked the same but said "Dingo on Board". (Australians will understand). Pissed a lot of people off, but I thought it was funny too. | ||
| Jon |
Peter, Now THAT's funny. When we had our kids were babies, we never had that sign. I just drove like I was being chased by the cops and people stayed away. When driving, the best defense is a good offense. | ||
| Ezblast |
Reg - we can choose what we read, we try to keep this as a viable topical place for all environs. so that all may enjoy the BADWEB. GT - JBOTDS! EZ  | ||
| CJXB |
I am done on this site. I don't think Adios was a cool response to that, I like RT's explanation better than a glib, I am light/dark whatever BS all that was Jon spouted. Blake would say you didn't "blast" it, you discussed it with other custodians, determined it was offensive and moved the post to the depository. Especially in this forum where a few members leaving badweb has been discussed and possible improvements, a little PR would go a long way !??? | ||
| Jon |
CJxb, A little sarcasm and humor is needed, everything can't be a "Meet the Press" discussion. Beside, I don't have a blazer that fits me anymore. C'mon, man (I mean "woman", but not in a discriminatory way), in the context of the picture that was posted, we didn't need our lab coats for that one. I sould have said, I "clubbed" it! I would actually like some PR if PR mean PeppeRoni. Got Linguica? Pete's coffee ROCKS!! (Message edited by jon on June 15, 2006) | ||
| Blake |
Lurch, I liked the message and understand your intent was positive. So here's a censored version of your pic. I appreciate the message, but agree that the picture is not appropriate in this forum.  Reg, Had someone submitted it in a letter to the editor, would you have printed the original pic in Battle2Win? I agree that life does sometimes subject us to horrific things. Do you really buy into the logic that it is then perfectly acceptable to subject everyone to horrific things whenever and where-ever desired? Taken to the wild extreme, using that same logic, could one not justify all manner of unacceptable behavior? I think that even you will agree that there is indeed a line that should not be crossed in what appears on a public forum. The issue then is not whether or not sensorship is appropriate but where the line should be drawn between acceptable and unacceptable. Am I right? Is it not then an issue of simply disagreeing with others where exactly that line should be drawn. Not so bad then is it? | ||
| Ezblast |
Yetch! - try the Beanery on either 7th and Irving or 9th and Irving, or MuddyWaters, or Farleys - they have coffe that rocks! I could give you a good tour of all the SF's best coffee shops - get better and I'll show you some real caffiene - including the customized mud I make at home and work - lol GT - JBOTDS! EZ | ||
| Jon |
Oh my gosh, Ed. You sound like a journeyman. I may have to take you up on that. Custom made mud...Hmmm...sounds reckless...I like it. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
Jon... I didn't "like" the image. In fact, the whole idea is abhorrent to me. I automatically take the context into account, however. The point here is moot, though. BW has a structure and standards that require custodians to pass judgement. This works for you, but not for me. I'll understand your point if you'll understand mine: What is REALLY offensive...and I mean REALLY!...to me is having someone think they have a better idea as to what I should see, read, or hear, than do I. I can't emphasize that point strongly enough. Put another way, the custodians on BW are telling me that the picture in question has been removed to protect me. From what? We have seen these rights usurped on a somewhat regular basis; Macarthyism, book burnings, movie censorship... it's a scary list. RT: " Nobody has the right to decide what you should view." But you took that right when you deleted the picture. Who's to decide what is appropriate for "showing on daytime public television or on a public billboard?" And I'm sure you recognize the fact that the overwhelming impetus behind this type of censorship is fear of financial loss. It has little to do with concern for the public or---let's roll 'em out again---the kiddies. I was continually confronted with this during my Thunder Press years. Advertisers, readers and half-assed patch clubs alike wore a steady path to my door demanding that some offending ad or article be removed. I never acceded to this blackmail (there was always a financial or physical consequence added to the demand) nor ever will. This is a core value that we're discussing; quite possibly the most important of our ever-eroding freedoms. It's a no-brainer to react to the seal picture; a beautiful animal senselessly and brutally murdered for vanity's sake. And one thing that makes it so easy is that it's happening elsewhere. Lacing up the mukluks and tredging across a barren floe, and then throwing yourself between club and pup... well, that ain't gonna happen any day soon. It's much harder, though, to stand up for something when it's happening in your face, right here, right now. And that's how I see it: Instead of a club, it's a "Delete" key. No blood is drawn, but will is eroded as justifying an odious act becomes easier the more it's practiced. Where does the line get drawn? | ||
| Regkittrelle |
Blake... Yes, I would have printed the picture had the context been appropriate. How many times do I have to write "context?" "...perfectly acceptable to subject everyone to horrific things whenever and where-ever desired?" Need I deign this with an answer? Apparently, yes. It is not a question of subjecting something on someone. Rather, it is the question o who should make the decision? Blake; when you edited that picture... a misguided act at best... you determined what you thought the rest of us should be allowed to see. Spin it anyway you'd like,but that's the bottom line. Who gave you that right? Who gave you the right to decide that Reg Kittrelle should not be subjecting to bloodied seal pups? "..could one not justify all manner of unacceptable behavior?" You've taken a hugely illogical step with that statement. A picture does not justify behavior, it exhibits it. "Is it not then an issue of simply disagreeing with others where exactly that line should be drawn. " Yes, that is the issue, but it is in no way a simple one. In fact, suggesting that it is simple highlights a primary difference between us and, if I might bring this full circle, the difference bewtween BadWeb and SacBORG. | ||
| Peter |
Pete's coffee ROCKS!!  Just got a new Nespresso machine. Lot's of flavours. Wired to the gills ...  | ||
| Road_thing |
Reg: I understand your point, but I think you may have missed mine. I underlined "you" to emphasize that you have the right to look at anything you want to look at. If black velvet Elvis paintings or goat porn are interesting to you, by all means seek them out and look at them to your heart's content. But would you expect to find those subjects on a motorcycle-oriented website with stated ground rules including the sentences I posted above? Would you look for black velvet Elvis paintings in the Louvre? Would you look for goat porn in the Book of Mormon? I think the line, in this case, was drawn when the rules of the BWB were written to include "I will not post any content to BadWeB or hyperlinks to other web pages that one would hesitate to expose in the workplace or to family and children. If it is not appropriate for showing on daytime public television or on a public billboard, it is likely not acceptable to post on BadWeatherBikers.com." In the larger sense, I agree that censorship is a bad thing. I think that black velvet Elvis paintings and goat porn (especially when it's done in good taste  ) are OK for people to look at. But they don't need to be everywhere. rt | ||
| Jon |
Well stated RT. Alright, Pete! 2 for 2. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
RT: Would I expect to find profanity on a motorcycle bulletin board? Heavens to Betsy, no! "In the larger sense, I agree that censorship is a bad thing." In the "Larger" sense? At what point does censorship become a "small" issue? A question to anyone willing to answer it: What do you imagine would happen were all the restriction on BadWeb---and the custodians--removed? (And please let's not say, "Well, it would become SacBORG." | ||
| Jon |
Preferences, Reg. They're found throughout life and America. There is no place where freedom has no bounds. I acknowledge your vision, but this place has fences. Heck, I know you are not hearing anything new, nor am I wanting to come off as condescending. | ||
| Regkittrelle |
Spot on, Jon. "Preferences" cannot be argued. They, however, should not be cloaked in altruism. And, actually, I've heard a bit of new here. If nothing else, I better understand why it is the way it is. "Condescending?" not in the least. I appreciate your even-handedness. | ||
| Jon |
Reg, You are refreshing to read. Cheers! | ||
| Road_thing |
Reg, I think we're talking about two different things. I understand your point to be that "Censorship is never justified". That's a large issue, and it's not the one I'm arguing. My point is "Participants on the Badweb have agreed not to post certain types of material that may be offensive to some people. Lurch's post contained an example of exactly that type of material, and it was removed for that reason." Our points begin to converge on the issue of whether Badweb's rules, or enforcement thereof by Badweb's custodians, constitute "Censorship". If you, Blake and I were all equal partners in the ownership of Badweb, I'd say that each of us had an equal right to our views on the subject as they relate to content on the Badweb. Since Badweb is 100% Blake's, and since he's laid down the ground rules, my view is that enforcement of the rules is not exactly the same as "Censorship" in the larger sense of the word. rt Oh, and just for the record, I didn't delete Lurch's picture... | ||
| Regkittrelle |
This is too cool. I believe we understand each other. (that just might be a first on the internet!) | ||
| Jon |
I did (delete Lurch's post) and I stated that in the vacated post to avoid any frustration as to who did. |
