's Forum Archives - General

Archive Home >> General(1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 )

Morning pick-me-up :O)(41 posts)

Morning pick-me-up :O)Live Steam
Jun 10, 2003 4:16 AM
View at your own risk! :O)
Bodacious Babes on Bikes!

(link editted in jest by gregg)
These ladies need proper safety gear... (nm)KeeponTrekkin
Jun 10, 2003 4:51 AM
At least they're all smilin' :O) (nm)Live Steam
Jun 10, 2003 5:13 AM
you can tell Doug is still asleep in CA....... nmafrican
Jun 10, 2003 5:00 AM
Quick poll -- How long will it take for this to be pulled?ms
Jun 10, 2003 5:05 AM
I say 30 minutes.
I did give a warning. Besides they all look ...Live Steam
Jun 10, 2003 5:17 AM
like wholesome girls to me :O) Have you ever seen a nicer collection of boobs, I mean tubes?

You really think it violates the spirit of the "law"? It is cycling related :O)
I have no problem with it, but there have been other . . .ms
Jun 10, 2003 5:59 AM
pics pulled by the censors. My post really was just a good natured attempt to needle the more prudish members of our RBR family and spark some more interest in your original post. In my law book, the First Amendment is very prominent. But, the First Amendment does not apply to private actors, such as RBR. It is sometimes hard to say what the "law" is here. Some wags say that the law is what five justices of the Supreme Court say it is. I guess here we have a two man Supreme Court -- Doug and Gregg. I don't know what happens when we have a tie vote.
There are "prudish members" on this board? :O) nmLive Steam
Jun 10, 2003 6:16 AM
I'm hoping to see that even at the 2004 Olympic games.n[m]niteschaos
Jun 10, 2003 5:51 AM
Perhaps as an exhibition sport (nm)53T
Jun 10, 2003 10:53 AM
I love it!humbert
Jun 10, 2003 5:53 AM
Very tastefully done - but my money says it will be pulled by 11:00am EDT. By the way, it looks like many of the ladies may have the same plastic surgeon.
Pick me up? What do you mean?Kristin
Jun 10, 2003 5:54 AM
I didn't do much for me. I feel ripped off. I mean, I took time out of my busy day to open your link and found your claims are false.
Well Kristin you don't know how happy I am ...Live Steam
Jun 10, 2003 6:10 AM
to hear that from you :O)
...careful.... nmSteve_0
Jun 10, 2003 6:35 AM
Yummers. nm.No_sprint
Jun 10, 2003 7:07 AM
Well we're past 11am EST.....those guys must have slept in.Screaming Barfy
Jun 10, 2003 7:12 AM
may get pulledDougSloan
Jun 10, 2003 7:20 AM
I'm asking Gregg whether a link to porn is as bad as posting it directly. Likely will get pulled.

Why Doug, was that a typo or something else?? :-) nmKristin
Jun 10, 2003 7:29 AM
Oh, c'mon, it's not porn. Look at it, don't look at it, considebill
Jun 10, 2003 7:30 AM
it appropriate or not, but it's not porn.
procedural questionms
Jun 10, 2003 7:42 AM
Are you the Court of Appeals and Gregg the Supreme Court? Or, are the two of you a two man Supreme Court? If you are a Court of Appeals, do you follow the views of your home circuit, the Ninth, or one of the more conservative ones, like my home circuit, the Fourth?

BTW: I'm just trying to have some fun as a draft something upon which I have been procrastinating for several days. The point that I make to my daughters, who already know my extreme First Amendment views (i.e., pro expression), is that the First Amendment only applies to governmental actors. As a private actor I am not bound by it -- and, neither are you (or Gregg or RBR).
more like a copDougSloan
Jun 10, 2003 7:59 AM
I'm more like a cop (implement, not set policy), and Gregg the City Council/courts/mayor/court of appeals/supreme court, etc. Gregg is dictator, or at least President (I assume he has bosses to answer to ultimately).

You are right. This is a private forum, and the owners can do anything they want.

The First Amendment can apply in private situations, but it only guarantees the right to speak, not the right to use a forum belonging to someone else. If the owners wanted, they could ban all posts from Democrats/Republicans or anyone they choose. Wouldn't be good business, but legal. They certainly can ban photos of naked people or links to photos of naked people.

I need to delete what?? (reclick link above ;-) nmgregg
Jun 10, 2003 9:34 AM
;-) nmDougSloan
Jun 10, 2003 9:36 AM
The other link was better. Your contibution is HEINOUS!!Kristin
Jun 10, 2003 9:41 AM
Not that I want the nudey girls back; but this article is sacrelig! I can't believe you brought yourself to post it. They call gambling a sport and very nearly claim that cycling is bad for you. Eh...I...How could you post this?!?
Oh, you mean you actually READ it?gregg
Jun 10, 2003 9:55 AM
It was the most appropriate that I could find with Google in two minutes.

Didn't think to actually read past the first 5 paragraphs bullit points!


(I'll be more careful next time!)
Very slick, gregg.KG 361
Jun 10, 2003 9:41 AM
Fortunately, I got to it before the re-direct =) While some may find it offensive, it certainly isn't pornography;-)
we can call it what it isDougSloan
Jun 10, 2003 9:51 AM
Probably not really porn. It certainly is "nudity," though. Nudity is prohibited. I think the guideline is roughly network television material.

we can call it what it isKG 361
Jun 10, 2003 9:57 AM
Not complaining-I know the rules. Was nice to "catch a peek", so to speak, before the long arm of the law let the hammer down. =)
then againDougSloan
Jun 10, 2003 10:10 AM
You can find that sort of thing any time you want without links from this site... ;-)

Quite true.....nmKG 361
Jun 10, 2003 10:41 AM
That picture's been floating around for a long timeMel Erickson
Jun 10, 2003 11:31 AM
A buddy sent it to me a month ago. Is this link taboo?
hmmm network tv? either you're not staying up late enough...Frith
Jun 10, 2003 10:27 AM
or American TV is a little bit tamer than Canadian.
Jun 10, 2003 10:35 AM
Maybe I need to move.

Bare naked women's chests not allowed on network (broadcast) tv here, as far as I know. If they are, please tell me where. ;-)

In CanadaMel Erickson
Jun 10, 2003 11:36 AM
They have a news show where the BROADcasters strip while reading the news. The news is straight and so is their delivery. NakedNews, the network with nothing to hide.
ah yes nakednewsFrith
Jun 10, 2003 2:52 PM
I find that the weirdness of that show is how disjointed the nudity is to the actual show. It is for all intents and purposes with a legitimate news program.
have seen bare breasts on:dante
Jun 10, 2003 11:45 AM
ER (a while ago, something about a young girl wanting implants...)
MTV (showed the "before" picture of someone getting breast enlargements, but blured out the "after" picture)
Discovery: native women of the Sahara

can't remember any other instances, but it seems to be relatively ok if done tastefully and not in a sexual manner. Geez, I don't even know what the big deal is with bare breasts, think mainstream America is WAY too uptight. Oh well, but that's just my feelings... :)

have seen bare breasts on:FTMD
Jun 10, 2003 1:44 PM
Also have seen them on the E! Channel's "Wild On" show. Had to be a mistake, but they were there. Just for a split second.

Years ago, a local TV channel would show movies late at night, around 2-3 a.m., that didn't cut out nudity.

I've seen more than one show regarding breast implants that show the woman topless.

A lot of the shows on TV are more over top w/o the actual nudity than that original photo.

Bottom line, it's not as rare as one might think.
you suck gregg. :(gregario
Jun 10, 2003 12:22 PM
He gets paid to suck.Spoiler
Jun 10, 2003 3:18 PM
know what I mean?!
Hey is that a record or something? :O)Live Steam
Jun 10, 2003 11:42 AM
Wow +1500 views in 6.5 hours! Awe I knew it would get pulled, but it was cycling related and I thought it was somewhat tame. Hope no one was offended and it looks like Gregg took it in good spirit. My brother-in-law emailed it to me, knowing how much of a cycling nut I am. I told him they are BMX bikes and he said "What kinda' bikes?". Hey Gregg did ya' save a copy for yourself? You know for artistic purposes or something :O) Can't be easy getting all those, huhhumm, bikes in the in the right light for photographing :O)
no worries...gregg
Jun 10, 2003 2:03 PM
... while some people may take my action of removing the image as some kind of personal, puritanical ethic, let me assure you that is definitely not the case! Heck, I've been a fan of drunkcyclist for months!

It's just that as manager of this site, it's my job to uphold a certain "standard". That's all.


(BTW, I've deleted the exact same picture from MTBR forums at least 4 times already!)