Objection to my Avatar

[Jack]

CHIFF FIPPLE's avatar is not the only one here not quite to my taste, as any I choose may not be to others taste ... it isn't worth an argument.

I agree with that it isn't worth an argument, but the argument didn't come from Stacey. The argument came from somebody (kkrell and others?) who took it upon themselves to say how horrible they thought Stacey's avatar was. They're the one(s) who shouldn't have made it an issue.

[Quiet John]

Cran, FWIW, I think you made your point pretty well.

I would vote for Stacey to use a different avatar, but I don't really have a solid case for that opinion except that a different choice of avatar would avoid controversy and generally make the board more peaceful.

[Jack]

Quote @ ants

I would vote for Stacey to use a different avatar, but I don't really have a solid case for that opinion except that a different choice of avatar would avoid controversy and generally make the board more peaceful.

The avatar itself was just fine until somebody choose to make it a controversial issue by complaining. This person(s) didn't have to do that.

Just leave Stacey (and her avatars) alone.

[kevin m.]

Well Stacey,you should know by now-Try to do something a little different and your bound to get some KNOCKERS!
I suppose your detractor felt that they just had to get it off their CHEST.
Personally, I think it's a storm in a D CUP!

(Ahem). :roll:

[Quiet John]

Right. I should add, though, that in this cultural climate, it is more likely that something like that will be complained about than a depiction of something else. (Excuse the awkwardness of the previous sentence; I'm not a writing expert)

The avatar itself was just fine

Why do you think so?

[Jack]

Right. I should add, though, that in this cultural climate, it is more likely that something like that will be complained about than a depiction of something else. (Excuse the awkwardness of the previous sentence; I'm not a writing expert)

The avatar itself was just fine

Why do you think so?

Okay, let's assume I felt the avatar was indeed a terrible example of art (and all avatars are a form of art to identify you, anybody will agree with that, else why have them?) and needed removed.

Even if I felt the avatar was horrible, I have enough sense not to complain and try to get someone to remove it, because I know how silly that is - if person A doesn't like person B's avatar, what's to stop person B from finding person C's just as objectionable and having it removed, too?

I agree with jkrazy52, that it really shouldn't be an issue.

[jbarter]

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the complaints as the firewall here at work prevents the animated avatars from moving so I'm only getting a single frame. Could somebody explain what has been found objectionable?

[Jack]

A split-second glimpse of a female breast.

[jim_mc]

Maybe your monitor has better resolution than mine, but I didn't see any breasts that weren't clothed. One set seems to have flesh colored clothing, but clothing nonetheless.

I'm going to put goatse up for my next icon.

[Jack]

No, this monitor is ancient...and I can't get it to stop on just the right frame. You are probably correct that there was no unclothed breast.

[Joseph E. Smith]

Not something anyone should stare at for long perods of time. Things flash by so quickly, it's hard to make out any detail. There's always going to be someone who will complain about any and all things, as they have a right to, but that doesn't necessarily mean that we have to stomp out the reason for their complaint. Leave it alone, says I

[Marko]

av·a·tar ( P ) Pronunciation Key (v-tär)
n.
1. The incarnation of a Hindu deity, especially Vishnu, in human or animal form.



Indian numinous history tells us that the handsome god Vishnu once changed his form in order to distract and delude the race of Asuras. He changed himself into the beautiful, mind-boggling, and breast-bubbling Mohini, wearing only a minuscule minimus which did nothing to hide her interesting details as she waved the small piece of cloth when she ran or danced. In those days the Indian scriptures knew how to relate a good story.

There are two epilogues to this event. Mohini was not forgotten in a hurry, and the event reached the ears of Lord Shiva. Shiva was interested in a fleshy sort of way. The next time he met Lord Vishnu, he not only talked about Mohini but asked him to oblige by repeating the wonderful transformation. This Vishnu kindly did, but Lord Shiva immediately became so sexually stimulated that he ran after Mohini with his weapon at the alert. She ran among the trees and tempted him all the more.

this is from http://www.mahendranath.org/ainigmatiko ... tikos.html
It gets a bit steamy after this part so I'll not copy it all.

[GaryKelly]

I'm at a bit of a loss to understand the complaints as the firewall here at work prevents the animated avatars from moving so I'm only getting a single frame. Could somebody explain what has been found objectionable?

A frame-grab of the stills... nothing there that offends me, and at only 20kb it's not a huge file either. I doubt very much that whoever it was who complained privately to Dale will post publicly here. Much ado about nothing, imho.

[Tyghress]

I wasn't the objectee...and I probably wouldn't complain anyway, but I certainly won't leave any post with that avatar on the screen long enough to read it. Its like an obnoxious four year old screaming in your face.

[Walden]

I see broad categories.

(1) People opposed to censorship.
(2) People who hold a romanticized notion of self-censorship, and pay
lip-service to category (1).
(3) People opposed to censorship of words, but in favor of censorship
of images.
(4) People who are in theory opposed to censorship but would just as
soon censor anyone favoring censorship.
(5) People who feel that public places should be mildly censored for the
sake of children and people of delicate constitution, but that a restricted
forum should also be provided that is, for all intents and
purposes, "anything goes."
(6) People who feel that civilizations must have boundaries of decency.
(7) People opposed to censorship of non-erotic nudity or immodesty
of dress.
(8 ) People opposed to censorship of erotic material.
(9) People opposed to censorship of nudity or eroticism, but in favor of
censorship of depictions of violence.
(10) People who favor censorship of eroticism or nudity, but find no fault
with depictions of violence.
(11) People who favor censorship of profanity, expletives, or obscene
language.
(12) People who oppose censorship of profanity, expletives, or obscene
language.
(13) People who consider it acceptable to use profanity, but only if
obscured by using quaint, dialectic, or foreign-language forms.
(14) People who come from one culture and don't know what is
offensive in another society.
(15) People who come from other cultures and know things are
offensive in another society, but hold that members of the other
society are backward and need to get a grip.
(16) People opposed to censorship of language, etc. but in favor
of censoring religious or political speech.
(17) People with a political agenda, who wish to change things by
pushing the limit.
(18 ) People who will push the boundaries, no matter how wide
the boundaries are laid.

Most of these categories, and more are represented among us.
We all know there will be no consensus of opinion.

Perhaps it was for these sorts of issues that we got The Reasonable Person Principle