'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 )

fyi re nude photos -- Moderator(32 posts)

fyi re nude photos -- ModeratorDougSloan
Aug 16, 2003 2:03 PM
Nude photos are not allowed, not even bare butts. As much as I'd like to see them myself, that's not what this site is about. There are plenty of others on the web where you can see all that you want.

Oh, and persisting in breaking the rules can cause "IP issues," if you know what I mean.


... I guess that answers the question...Akirasho
Aug 16, 2003 2:37 PM
... still, it seems to be a somewhat thin line... while I can't attest to it directly, I seem to remember photos of both Armstrong and Cipollini that remained in certain threads... that arguably would be considered... nudes. Indeed, there have even been post crash pics of bare bums (arguably, a couple were road rashed enhanced).

Still, I'm an even handed kinda person... I get's ya drift...

Be the bike.
No thin lineSpoiler
Aug 16, 2003 6:38 PM
The purpose, message, and circumstance, and context of Beloki with ripped shorts is entirely different than what was posted here today. Everyone, EVERYONE, knows the difference. Twisting them around to say they have the same effect is a playing games.

Now if crash photos were to get censored, that would be bs.
The newly designed CamelBak...spyderman
Aug 17, 2003 11:17 PM
Getting ready for a century???
The real question is: did YOU save the picture Doug?.nmchopper
Aug 16, 2003 2:38 PM
Sorry-the bull
Aug 16, 2003 2:40 PM
I am "Bummed" out now!
Aug 16, 2003 4:34 PM
Don't worry, he never mentioned anything about hummers and saddles.
Is that allowed still?the bull
Aug 16, 2003 6:29 PM
I'd be happier without it.Spoke Wrench
Aug 17, 2003 9:03 AM
I, for one, find it offensive. With all of the sites on the internet where you are welcome to share pictures like this, why should I be subjected to this on a bicycling site?
Maybe he's making an important social statement here.Spoiler
Aug 17, 2003 9:33 AM
He's reminding people that the fight against the objectification of women is far from over.

He's opening our eyes to the fact that even a socially responsible activity such as cycling can still be used as a tool for repression. By reproducing the image, he's actually protesting, purposefully stirring up solidarity, reuniting us with the race's Goddess Mother proto-mindset.

Then again, maybe it's the product of smoking Spanish fly while snorting dad's Viagra. It's a convenient outlet for male virgins to perform the knuckle-shuffle without having to access a dedicated porn site.

Similar posts will be popping up in featuring some bimbo fellating the business end of a Nike 6-iron.
Gee, maybe if you got more of it you wouldn't be so uptight!spyderman
Aug 17, 2003 11:24 AM
Maybe if you rode a bike, you'd contribute.Spoiler
Aug 17, 2003 1:13 PM
And a lame spoiler post doesn't count as bike-related,
Didn't have the guts to post a spoiler during the Tour?

You're like a petulant little 6-year old testing your parents patience with petty little naughtiness.

You're throwing a tantrum because all you have to contribute is tasteless pics. Once those are taken away from you, you have no purpose in life.

Get a bike, ride it hard, break something, and ask us how to fix it. Till then, lurking is your best bet.
What about this???spyderman
Aug 17, 2003 11:34 AM
Should these be banned?spyderman
Aug 17, 2003 11:38 AM
And these too?spyderman
Aug 17, 2003 11:40 AM
a new bike?spyderman
Aug 17, 2003 11:47 AM
"Should these be banned?"--Absolutely!The Walrus
Aug 17, 2003 1:04 PM
Auuggghhhhhh!!!! My eyes! My eyes!
Cruddy weld job if you ask me. (nm)Al1943
Aug 17, 2003 4:58 PM
DARNIT! What did I miss? LOLMisJG
Aug 16, 2003 4:31 PM
I always miss the good stuff. . .
Sonofa.... I always miss the good stuff too... (nm)kjr39
Aug 17, 2003 10:40 AM
Aug 16, 2003 5:14 PM
Consider this my official protest of the "even bare butts" rule. While I do understand that this is not the place for XXX photos, I will say I've enjoyed a number of "questionable" photos on this site. I have yet to see any photo I would consider worse than a PG-13 movie. Childern under 13 years old should be monitored by an adult when on the internet. While I am sure there is someONE out there that is offended by a bare butt or an exposed breast, I believe there is a greater number of us that are offended by this censorship. Let us not destroy tastefully adult humor and frivolity for the sake of one or two schoolmarms. Bare butts of the world, stand up and unite!
Here here53T
Aug 16, 2003 5:23 PM
I'm a parent of two kids, and I didn't even know that kids were not supposed to see nude butts. Is this something new?
Aug 16, 2003 5:33 PM
Knowing that I'm an avid cyclist, my friend sent me that photo which I shared thinking that it was humorous.
I agree with you, but I consider myself a guest when I visit this site so I shall abide by the rules.
My apology if I offended anyone.
TJeansloz said it best.Spoke Wrench
Aug 16, 2003 6:04 PM
Actually, it was on a different subject - What constitutes an acceptably safe method of painting a house. He said: Everybody draws their line differently. If you don't like where the line has been drawn on this site (regardless of which side of the aisle you're on), you're certainly free to do your thing somewhere else.

I'm pretty contemptuous about the "free speech" argument. In a free society we start off with the notion that people should be allowed to do pretty much whatever they want. There are always people who test the waters. Eventually, they say or do something that the majority feels is so outrageously wrong they say "I'm willing to give up part of my freedom to keep him from doing that." The pornographers aren't patriots preserving and defending our freedom of speech, they're the thieves that are bit-by-bit stealing it from us.
giving up freedomnova
Aug 17, 2003 4:53 AM
"I'm willing to give up part of my freedom to keep him from doing that."

In the context of our society (and not of this msg board) someone (Thomas Jefferson?) said, and I'm paraphrasing here:

"A man who would give up freedom for security deserves neither."
That's out of balance.Spoke Wrench
Aug 17, 2003 8:50 AM
It sounds to me like you're saying that freedom is allowing the lowest, most disgusting people to define our society. Do you think that phone solicitors should be allowed the freedom to call you anytime of the day or night? How about constant pop up ads on the internet? How does putting up with those make me free? Just because somebody has the capability of showing me something doesn't mean that I should have to tolerate it. I absolutely demand the freedom to be able to find a refuge from that kind of stuff.
free speech, etc.DougSloan
Aug 16, 2003 7:53 PM
While Gregg (and I, his helper) value free speech very highly, technically rights to freedom of speech do not apply here. This is a private forum, and the owners can set their own rules. The government cannot restrict free speech. The site rules here have nothing to do with that. You have the right to free speech in any forum you can create or in a truly public forum (town square), but a private web site owner can set whatever rules it wants. If that means no bare butts, then that's the rule.

As far as where to draw the line -- it's tough sometimes. Some nudity is tasteful and relevant; most isn't. I've found that 99% of the time, it's pretty easy to distinguish. The default, however, is simply "no nudity", meaning no nude women's breasts, no butts, and no pubic areas.

No, I don't save the photos before deleting posts. I know where to find them myself. ;-)

It's your ball ...FatManLittleBike
Aug 16, 2003 8:33 PM
... we'll play by your rules. Thank you, Gregg, for this forum. Thank you, Doug, for your time and attention as our moderator.
Thankless Jobninelittlepiggies
Aug 16, 2003 8:48 PM

Keep up the good work as moderator. You get flamed often, but know that there are many who appriciate the time you put into this forum.
free speech, etc.al0
Aug 17, 2003 5:16 AM
Is YOU owner of the site? If no, had owners obliged you to prohibit butts etc.? If YES why you not reffer to them in your moderatorial to prevent meningless discussion.
Are these OK then?amflyer
Aug 17, 2003 8:19 AM
Are these OK then?spankdoggie
Aug 17, 2003 1:13 PM
Is this ok?