Moderator: MOD_SPWaW
[/font]
Edited to remove the name of the website.Bernie wrote:Finally, after years of blaming the lousy accuracy of my arty on my poor FO's (not to mention those long firing delays) I just discovered what the problem is!
The following links will show just what I'm talking about...
I'd love to Jess, but Seaworld says those pictures are copyrighted.M4 Jess wrote:Ah, Bernie.....Wheres Olga?
Now show me my Olga mister!!! :p
I couldn't close the window fast enough!! But rest assured I'll check them out later, in a more inconpicuous place! 
Ahem...Charles_22 wrote:Hey Bernie, could you do us all a favor? If you insist on degredating what in many respects is an otherwise respectable forum, completely free as far as I can see from material exploiting women before your attempt, could you please attach some warning? Even if one wants to look at that stuff, and surely the web address should be a clue, nevermind whether it should be linked to in a Matrix forum or not in the first place, it could have dire consequences "at work". Just one whiff of that sort of thing at work could be grounds for immediate termination for some of us. I'm sure many of us clicked on the links in complete trust, having not run into such a similar situation before from Matrix (apart from the AoW forum perhaps).
Your cooperation is appreciated.
The fact that you would point out that "feminists" have approved, perhaps the very same type of feminists the mass media expouses (the NOW bunch for example), would remind me of the very idea that those feminists are very opposed to the idea of a woman being feminine in any number of ways, and an organization which has not my trust.Bernie wrote:Ahem...
The site in question is a serious photography site, not an "adult" site. It is associated with DOMAI.com, one of the premiere art photography sites on the Internet, and the subject of rave reviews in everything from the New York Times to Christain World Weekly. As for it "exploiting women" I think you should read some of the material on the site, from many noted feminists, before you make that judgement.
However, you are correct in that I should have given more warning than just the obvious fact of the link address and my reputation for comedy.
I got your back Bernie!! In fact, this is when I get the most chance to catch up on the forum. But in all honesty part of my work day is answering a phone, so when it's not ringing is when I get to surf the web. And my supervisor doesn't have a problem with that. Nice job heh? Government of course!! Agreeing on one point, as I view it, and I did have more than one point, is not agreement. So you'll post warnings, but you don't seem to agree that the forum has no place for material that should require warnings in the first place. But more on this point later...Charles, you are the only person I can think off off-hand who is so eager to mount their soapbox that they are willing to continue a debate even after someone has agreed with them.
I'm sure I thought of my parents's correction in the same way at times.As for the content of your reply, aren't you being just a bit condescending here?
Prepare for a likely long explanation. Are your hobbies really straws? Was that profile a joke? It's not like I sicked the FBI on you or anything extraordinary like that. You provided that information of your own free will I take, and now, that there is at least one person who may have at earlier glance thought not a lot about it, 'might' be seeing a pattern, you want to claim I'm snooping? Doesn't wash. Hey, I got lots of goodies too, and I'm not going to fidgit off of them if someone has a problem with them. Maybe more thought into who you would rather please and displease is in order when filling those profiles out, yes?You also seem to be wanting to turn this into a personal attack, grasping at the straw of what is contained in my profile. That is not very mature behavior for someone as knowledgeable and educated as you seem to be.
Incorrect. The company I work with used to be as you describe, but somewhere along the way we got bought out by a European company. While their standards of decency in many cases are lower than ours, and it seems ours can't get lower, they have transferred to some extent their love for leisure, thank God. Save us from the barbarians who claim their manhood or whatever their backstabbing is supposed to achieve, on selling people out who are using the internet to not do things strictly in the interests of the company. Of course what many of these morons fail to understand, that doing things like that tends to make those people more adept with technology like using computers, therefore saving their computer-illiterate selves from the hell their leisure (having water cooler talks for "their" goofing off) has created for them. It just so happens that the company may benefit MORE, from me or anyone else in IT using the computer more, when that's our blasted job. Want to know how to download something to a place besides the default directory? Oh, sorry bud, I was too busy reading manuals on the IBM 3494 to help you with that. I'm just as pc computer illiterate as you are (yuck yuck).If someone is at work, using company time and resources to browse the Matrix forums, then they are just as likely to be fired for goofing off and wasting company time no matter what is on the screen. At least they would be if they were working in my company.
Non-union down here Bernie. They can fire you on any whim, at any time. If you have an internet policy as my company does, you can at least throw company policy back in their face. While in most cases, 'art' or not, one nude lady seen on the screen is unlikely to garner termination, it is entirely possible, especially if that company has a good number of complainers milling about all the time. Sometimes that past history can be one lousy incident. In any event, if one of your incidents suddenly was 'art' on the screen, you can indeed be guaranteed of the most stringent scrutiny from there on out.The only possible exception I could see to that statement is if the person worked at a job where browsing the forums could be reasonably considered part of their duties. As to how likely it is that they'd actually be fired, as opposed to being reprimanded, it would depend on their past history in the company, wouldn't it?
True, but part of the problem, especially since it seems we're talking real living women here (instead of the statues) is that it's far too close to being taken the wrong way to be 'approved', and if your point was entirely blameless, I would ask why you referred to it in such a risque sense, and then why did the otheres respond such as to confirm that? So, clearly, the sight of what you linked to there, would clearly illicit that sort of work response. In short it's irresponsible to think nobody should be offended or will. For all the it's just innocent art I seem to be getting from you, there's no Venus de Milo type response to back it, like, "Ah, tis a beautiful work of art. Notice the veins, the broken arms (ha ha) and so forth." No the response is more of the T&A variety.So, what it boils down to is, was the material offensive? As you've pointed out, in a rather roundabout way, anything can be considered offensive to some groups. I'm sure there are groups who would scream bloody murder over the fact someone was actually using a computer, even more so that they actually used it to connect to The Internet! (shudder!)
That's precisely what I did, but a lot of people put trust in the posters here, because, believe it or not, this forum hasn't turned into some hedonist lust fest just yet. It is only he who gives resistance to something, that can tell you that what he opposes has any strength. As GK Chesterton once put it: ""A dead thing can go with the stream, but only a living thing can go against it." - Everlasting Man, 1925"It is not my place to be a censor for the planet, and all the people thereon. If you have sensibilities so fragile that you need such protection then you should be carefully reading what you click on.
This isn't Atrocity Central is it? The game has no atrocity elements in it, does it? Sure the topic may be discussed, but I've yet to see people post links to look over all the lovely pictures of corpses, much less to make some seeming vow of love for their state as you did for your little nudeys. At least it would be more "on topic", than nudity (art or not), wouldn't it? You want to show such art with such comments, then there's plenty of 'art' forums like that about the internet. I was rather hoping such things would stay out of this website, but as Chesterton might observe, there seems to be so many corpses around here, it'll only get worse.Lastly, I'd like to point out the sheer (to me at least) lunacy of a debate on the "evils" of nudity in a forum dedicated to war and conflict simulation! It is "acceptable" to discuss and recreate battles in which thousands died, were wounded, and untold atrocities were committed, yet it is unacceptable to view something that is innocent and beautiful.
And the purpose and function of SPWAW is to show nudity, art or not??????? Isn't it more to the point of the forum, to try to defend what one thinks it to be? In having this very discussion with you, one of the stinging points that should be ringing in your ears is that the links aren't in a place where they belong. Ignore my ethical objections if you wish, you fail in your main premise to be concerned with being on-topic. To make some attempt to try to remind people that this forum isn't Nudity-Central is very on-topic indeed; like my reasoning or not.If you wish to continue this debate, I suggest we do so via email so as not to stray so far from the function and purpose of this forum.
What's next? Are you going to spank me? Send me to my room?
