Bright Moments Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Due to the recent posts I thought I would start this poll. Majority rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uncle Skid Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I'm not offended, but I think you should dump it. Think of it this way -- would you be comfortable having that image on your name tag at a board get-together? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Alfredson Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I'm not necessarily offended, but I don't think this is the place for it either. We are trying to attract a diverse membership, including women, and this isn't really a good way to do that. That said, just like with our member "Saxophone Vagina", I'm not going to censor you. If you like it, keep it. But I've been to some forums where members have gone overboard and have actual porn pictures in their avatars and sigs. It's supposed to be a professional audio forum and it's just childish. It's your call, dude. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dmitry Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 First of all, I think we're all adults here. I am sometimes mesmerized by the bounce of an occasional teet while leafing through the threads. Little square islands of sanity... We are trying to attract a diverse membersip, including women, and this isn't really a good way to do that. Right on! I get it. -_- What is the exact count of our female contingent? I assume Saxophone Vagina is one..? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 If for no other reason than the sake of people who might be looking at the board from their place of employment, I'd ditch it. It certainly doesn't offend me, but it's a tiny bit over the line, IMHO. BTW, I really like b3's take on this subject. He offers his opinion, but doesn't go throwing his weight around in the process. What a classy board mod!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connoisseur series500 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Doesn't bother me any. My vote was that it was okay. The main thing is that it represents "you" in some way; or it expresses some part of your personality. That part may be a sense of humor. Whatever.... I am offended by dishonesty. There's none of that in your actions, Evan. It might actually be interpreted as an act of honesty on your part by displaying that avatar. For some reason, I find the name, "Saxophone vagina" annoying and dishonest. Can't quite explain why; maybe because it is just plain tasteless. I don't feel the same way about your avatar, Evan. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I certainly wouldn't use it myself, and I do think we should "clean up a little" to avoid offending new visitors to an extent. But I'm so "unpassionate" about the issue that I can't even bring myself to vote, Evan! Maybe it's political forum withdrawal... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wesbed Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) I'm not offended in the slightest. I don't tend to be easily offended in general. I like knowing that we are mostly free to post what we want here. I've enjoyed this board immensely since its inauguration. I'd even offer to pay a little money, now and again, to assist in keeping the board operative. It's a sense of freedom, in a way, to believe that I can post what I want, in pictures and text, and can usually get away with it. On the other hand, to have a good bulletin board community, the board cannot be let slip into anarchy. The members must do what they can to assist in keeping the board active, comfortable, happy, to preserve the board for each other. Too many unhappy/unsatisfied members will result in members who no longer post and, at some point, will leave the board and, ultimately, kill it. An inactive board is no fun. Witness the board over at www.harlem.org. A too heavy-handed management will kill the board. Witness what took place at the BNBB. Each member must take it upon his/her own merit to self-police posts in an attempt to maintain a thriving community. I like to post what I want to post. I enjoy the freedom very much. If I have any sense, though, that something I posted or am about to post, might be offensive to somebody, I'll refrain from acting on said post. I'd rather leave a little of me out, to keep the thriving community in. I say, post what you want. Pesonally, I am not offended... never have been. If, however, you feel a need create a poll to ask if anybody is offended, because you have a reasonable doubt... then self-police your posts and do what is necessary to remove the doubt. What's the old saying? Let it begin. And let it begin with me. Edited April 15, 2004 by wesbed Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
robviti Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 i wonder what people's responses would be to an image of a naked guy. -_- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brownie Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I have no problem with Evan's lady. Nor with Berigan's avatar. Can't see the bad taste in those. They're fun and not offensive! And would not have problems with a naked guy avatar if that suits a poster. As long as it's not in bad taste. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vibes Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I voted to remove it. I'm not offended by it at all, but like Jim said, we're trying to attract a diverse crowd here, and I wouldn't want someone to be offended by something like that. Also, a lot of people like to read and post from work, and it feels a little safer when you don't have to worry about scantily clad women coming up on the screen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKE BBB Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) I voted to remove it. I'm not offended by it at all, but like Jim said, we're trying to attract a diverse crowd here, and I wouldn't want someone to be offended by something like that. Also, a lot of people like to read and post from work, and it feels a little safer when you don't have to worry about scantily clad women coming up on the screen.  Nah, I usually post from work, and my boss would be very pleased to see that signature or Berigan´s avatar... Those hot Spaniards... Edited April 15, 2004 by EKE BBB Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonym Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Well FWIW, I don't see how it could cause offence. If a female (or whatever) board member decided upon a partially clad male then I wouldn't give two hoots either. She's pleasing to the eye. She's not doing anything sexual or exposing genitalia -- Hell it might not even be a chick for all we know.... But let's have a little cultural perspective here --- Evan, now you are in Miami. You are exposed to this sort of image everyday you jump in your Testarossa and hurtle down the strip...it's the norm for you..... If I were to upload anything like this it would be a bit false and in some way pretentious. Now if any of you are offended by whippets or pigeons, speak now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A Lark Ascending Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) I'm deeply offended, Tony. I innocently looked up whippets on google image search and look what appeared! http://pages.globetrotter.net/mcordeau/2003/whippet.htm (don't ask why I looked up whippets...its coffee break time, I've been working hard...) Edited April 15, 2004 by Bev Stapleton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I would generally prefer not to have images in signatures, whatever the image is. It is distracting (especially when animated) and repetitive. An avatar should do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I think people should lighten up. And be reminded that the board allows you to supress signatures and avatars so if you are afraid of being offended, go into your controls and make the necessary changes. Maybe Jim should add that to the registration e-mail, so the soon-to-arrive diversity doesn't go screaming away. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold_Z Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I don't find it offensive at all. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harold_Z Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Where do you guys find these moving avatars ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7/4 Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I think people should lighten up. Me too! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AmirBagachelles Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Excuse me, she is somebody's daughter!!! Hopefully not his, but who knows? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Chaney Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 (edited) Has anyone elso noticed that her legs ROTATE at the knees? Edited April 15, 2004 by Chaney Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chrome Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 It's a fine line for me ... Evan's lady is on the non-offensive side, the bouncing boobs stuff falls on the offensive side. That extreme focus on body parts is really "dehumanizing." What would people think if someone's avatar was just a guy's huge cock? That would be the proper analogy here. -------- Offensiveness aside, I think both are out of place where they are. While there may be controls to turn off avatars, etc., someone just logging on to the site likely won't know about them. I just think it sends the wrong message. ----------- It's different from stuff like the Babe thread, which someone has to actually seek out, and which is more of an all-around appreciation of beauty. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 I would generally prefer not to have images in signatures, whatever the image is. It is distracting (especially when animated) and repetitive. An avatar should do. I agree. I don't mind text sigs, but I find pic sigs distracting, especially large pics. Actually, that bugs me way more than the particular content of Evan's current sig. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Has anyone elso noticed that her legs ROTATE at the knees? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Claude Posted April 15, 2004 Report Share Posted April 15, 2004 Blondes can do that Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.