Objection to my Avatar

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:48 am

Quote @ Walden

(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 think it's acceptable to use profanity, but only if
obscured by using 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 think they oughtn't be.
(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, now matter how wide
the boundaries are laid.

With all due respect, mabey the above is just a *tad* over-analytical of the situation? Especially considering this is just a squabble over an avatar...

I'm sure when Stacey created the icon, she didn't plan to get replies concerning "civilizations must have boundaries of decency".

Heh.

jbarter · Post by **jbarter** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:06 am

Thanks for splitting down the images for me Garry. It also answers another question for me. My PC obviously just picks up whichever of the images is showing at the split second I click on the post. I've been wondering why CHIFF FIPPLE kept changing avatars so often, now I can see they were all the same one.

Tony · Post by **Tony** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:48 am

There's too much time wasted on Avatars and the politics surrounding the use of them.

Go ahead Cranberry, in 10 posts or more describe your thoughts on this comment.

emmline · Post by **emmline** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:52 am

It would have gone away you know. There's a recurring practice 'round here of taking offense and confronting personalities whom you realize, if you have an ounce of sense, are going to heave it right back at you.

I have a 12 and 14 year old who behave like that 85% of their waking hours.
Perhaps they will not outgrow it.

Cyfiawnder · Post by **Cyfiawnder** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:14 am

I must comment though, that it is IMHO that my Avatar is the most objectionable of all. It looks like someone but a Spiky haircut and goatee on the buisness end of an Orangitan(sp?). I mean seriosuly Boobs don't scare kids, they feed kids, am I right? But that face to the left... argh makes the poor lil' carpet monsters run for cover.

Also using IE6.0 the Her Avatar doesn't switch cycle wildly, but using Mozilla Firefox it does. Another reason why in the words of my computer nerd breatheren "Internet Unexplorer $ux(0)Rs ||\/||@jor"

vomitbunny · Post by **vomitbunny** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:24 am

I am outraged that there are people that are outraged over the outrage of what ever this post started as. I forget.

mamakash · Post by **mamakash** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:25 am

Chiff Fipple's avatar is a Blip-vert from the Zik-Zak corporation!

I should award a prize to the first person who can explain the above comment. If you know the reference, you're pretty cool!

susnfx · Post by **susnfx** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:38 am

I don't have a problem with the avatar as such, but one would hope that after posting an avatar that met with objection(s), it would have been removed out of common courtesy. I suppose I believe more in acting for the common good of a group of people rather than the demands of the one - and I don't believe "If it feels good, do it" is the wisest basis for running a society.

Susan

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:40 am

Quote @ Tony

Go ahead Cranberry, in 10 posts or more describe your thoughts on this comment.

I bet I could do it in nine.

GaryKelly · Post by **GaryKelly** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:49 am

mamakash wrote:Chiff Fipple's avatar is a Blip-vert from the Zik-Zak corporation!

I should award a prize to the first person who can explain the above comment. If you know the reference, you're pretty cool!

I'd buy that for a dollar! M-m-m...Max...

Azathoth · Post by **Azathoth** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:56 am

For those who really want to obey the "see no evil" principle:

- Download Mozilla (or Firefox): www.mozilla.org
- Install
- Go to C&F with chosen mozilla.org browser
- Read a thread, any thread -- even this one
- Right-click an Evil Disgusting Avatar
- Choose "Block images from this site"**
- Reload page
- Relax. The Evil Digusting Avatar is gone.

(NB: As are any other pics hosted by C&F, but hey, the website now loads a lot faster!)

*G

Az

** Note: be careful not to click one entry higher, otherwise you'll get -- at least on Windows -- the Evil Disgusting Avatar as your desktop wallpaper *G

P.S. Of course, if people put linked avatars in their sigs, you're gonna hafta block all THOSE sites too :=)

P.P.S. My avatar comes with Extra Otherwordly Menace, so block if you dare.

JessieK · Post by **JessieK** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:02 am

The changing avatar WAS a reponse to something, I am sure (though I was NOT the one who complained and I don't know who was), because a few days ago, Stacey's avatar was one thing, not changing, and that thing was the naked torso with 40 DD written on it. I found it distasteful and tacky, but not overwhelmingly sexual, because since giving birth and trying to feed my daughter (I lasted almost a month), I find breasts to be a whole new (very practical) body part. Of course, many C&Fers have not had babies, and I can totally understand someone freaking out about that avatar. I think, Cranberry, that when Dale said you could have any avatar you wanted, he probably meant "within reason."

Martin Milner · Post by **Martin Milner** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:04 am

I have no problem with the individual frames, it's the blipping that gives me a headache.

Like someone said above, I couldn't look at the screen with that on for long, so I'm likely to miss Stacy's gems.

There's a possibility that rapidly changing images could trigger an epileptic fit in someone who is prone to them. After a few seconds exposure I'm feeling a bit wobbly and twitchy. As a first aider I'd recommend removing it. Not sure what the legal implications would be, but in America, land of the Suer, I'd tread carefully.

Also out common courtesy I'd remove it if someone complained, but then out of courtesy if I were to complain I'd complain direct to Stacey in a PM and not through Dale, and clearly explain my problem.

glauber · Post by **glauber** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:18 am

Walden wrote:I see [18] broad categories.

18??? You remind me of a preacher i knew once.

But seriously, some people may object to they way you categorize broads.

This kind of disagreement is bound to happen in a public forum. IMHO, it should have been solved by the offended person sending Stacy a polite email asking her to remove the image.

FWIW, it's just a silly pun: it's a "whistle rack" (rack in the slang sense of human mammalian glands -- http://members.tripod.com/~jaguarpage/slang.htm#[R] )

Jack · Post by **Jack** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:21 am

Quote @ JessieK

I think, Cranberry, that when Dale said you could have any avatar you wanted, he probably meant "within reason."

It was rich. I wish I'd saved the conversation.