JSngry

Was Frank Wess a known sex offender? If not, that's a pretty questionable choice for an album cover. I would be offended, but I guess you could make the case that he's pretending to be a bat, which would also be a surprise. Was he known to have been in a state of mental deterioration at this time? Silliness aside, who's in that band?

You can delete it or leave it standing. I really don't care either way. Seriosuly. It's gotten more attention in the last 24 hours than in the previous 90+ days combined, so it's old news (oops, didn't mean to use the O-Version of the n-word here, SORRY!) by now.

I seem to recall Maynard doing Star Trek?

My reading of the rules now is that if anybody is upset, then I should be upset, and then keep an eye open to delete anything that could upset anybody before anybody can get upset. Also, no images of anybody who's "in the news", because news is political and it upsets people, it's not something to be in, the news isn't, not if you want your picture to be seen here.

Not sure about that, but there is this:

Right. You know, I bid on this gig, and I got a union contract. I get paid OT for the special projects too. Why do you think I don't complain when you delete threads and shit? Because that's money in my pocket - and some of that goes in yours, as I'm sure you well know. Like I said, after the midterms, we're coming to getcha'! You wanna fuck with a moderator, be my guest. We have your IP address, we know where you live. Welcome to America! Oh, ok, just kidding about the cabal and shit. I don't want to make the error of assuming that everybody knows that. Can't bee too careful these days, especially with children. Welcome to America!

Yeah, well, I respect that as a current reality, but I have zero respect for it as an ongoing belief system. Ever.

See above, it's just a family and a flag. Nothing political about it at all. That's not my call, that's Dan's. But are they all smiling? I think a better takeaway from this might be to just not post any pictures of children. They're nothing but trouble!

Now THAT did not happen. Would not happen. Usually what happens is that I get home form work in the afternoon, see a complaint (and there are very few these days, now that a select poster or three no longer hang out here)) and Larry's already handled it. Unless he's deleted a thread in the process , that's that. Seems to work the other way as well, if I get it, I handle it. I would like to note that there is now an ongoing, active "political discussion" revolving around an image that was posted more than 90 days ago that has just revved up within the last 24 hours due to one moderator having a look (for what reason, I don't know). I now challenge anybody to go back and review the entire contents of the board and bring complaints by the end of the week, or forever hold your peace. And as somebody who spent a weekend + doing exactly that for one sub-forum (and 90 or so days back for the entire board) to restore the entirety of one poster's content that had been inadvertently deleted (blocked, more accurately), I wish you all well with that endeavor, and advise anybody who thinks they want to become a moderator to be ready to do the same. If you don't want political discussions, don't have them. Police yourself. And if you find an image to be offensive, make a complaint in a timely manner, and be specific. Past that, just grow up. Everybody. Don't hold grudges or keep ammo in reserve for future use.

So the issue is not the picture itself, it's that Larry cleared up some recent things and didn't go far enough back? What are we saying here, that we'll not complain in real time, or that moderators are expected to look at everything or nothing, or that some people don't like too much Buddy Rich, or just what are we saying here?

Really?

One question - that picture was posted on June 26, right? And here it is October and it's just now drawing complaints? It's taken three and a half months for people to complain? Why wasn't this reported to the authorities when it occurred?

Politics is about the pursuit of a particular ideology as manifested through specific policy. The image has no such ideology except what is brought to it by the viewer. It is provocative, true, but again - it itself is not "political", unless you want to take the position that any representation of a current event is political, in which case, hey, political: If Larry wants to delete that picture, he can do so. If Jim Alfredson wants to delete that picture, he can certainly do it. I'm not going to do it. And if you want a new moderator, feel free to volunteer to be one yourself. Have fun with it!

I hope I'm not the only one who sees it as political, and/or by definition anti-Trump immigration policy. Why can it not be seen as Trump as hero, making a tough call to execute a painful but necessary policy? Kids cry all over the world and it's never their fault. It's sad, but hell, it's not a perfect world. Kids are going to cry no matter what. It's up to the adults to do what has to be done to protect the future. That's a perfectly legitimate reaction to that image. As is oh my, what are we doing? Either way, it's a strong, well-constructed image representing a real-world current event. Your reaction may be political. The image is not. Why is the assumption that there's only one way to take a look at that image, because it's on the cover of Time? Are people so sheep-herded into their own paranoid tribes that they're incapable of processing information and reaching an independent interpretation? If source=conclusion, then, what, objective data no longer exists? Free thought no longer exists? Ability to interpret no longer exists? To take one thing and see it another way is not within our purveyance (and if that's the case, say goodbye to jazz, it was all just one big misunderstanding) Is the reality now that there's no need to think for ourself, just to take what is given us and either swallow it whole or spit it out lest it befoul our preset intellectual palate? I calling bullshit again. Doubling down, in fact.

What is the "message" of that Time cover? That some kids are being "welcomed" to America in a less than friendly way? How is that political? That's a fact. The image is a constructed one, but so is the reality it depicts. What's the problem? The politics come in with, is this a good thing or a bad thing? Is this a necessary evil, a necessary good, or totally unnecessary altogether? That's a political debate, and it is going on. But that's a debate about policy, not about a magazine cover. That image takes no sides in that regard, nor do I post any along with the image. Anybody who thinks that that cover is running for office, or proposing a specific policy, or engaging in any other type of human activity obviously sees magazine covers as having more initiative - and ability! - than I do. I'll say it again - if we're at a place where all "current events" are by definition "political", if we are unable to separate a constructed image from actual human action, then we are at a seriously fucked up place in our collective thought process. I'm calling bullshit.

The M*A*S*H them was the same as the movie, correct?

Again - I do not see that as a "political" image. Seriously.

I don't see what the "political message" is, really, I don't. Constructed image or not, it's a perfect construction, with a caption that pulls it all together. I know there's people. obviously, who don't think that any of the policy that created that situation is a negative thing. Why would a person who thought that way be offended by that image? I have to think that how an individual reacts to that would be based in large part upon what they bring to it. There's no comment or message about that. If there was, then it would definitely be political. As for the "messages" of Rosenstein and/or Trump peering through the window - there aren't any. They are just pictures, good, strong pictures of people involved in current events, but other than that, what you see in them is going to be what you bring to them, and I am not commenting on that. I'm just posting the pictures because I like good graphics, good design. Hell, I grew up reading Life & Look, magazines where the pictures were pretty much were the magazine. I like a good picture of a current event, always have, always will. Provoking a reaction is a good thing, but it's not up to me what that reaction is, nor is it my intent to tell you what I think it should be. That's entirely between you and yourself. Me, and I can't stress this enough, I just like a good picture, period.

M Squad, right?

Better quality, full opening:

And good luck finding that ANYWHERE> If you do, let me know.