I'll state this for the record...

[Anonymous]

A second chance for posting inappropriate naked children pics???? "Peculiar tastes"?????? Seriously????



Sorry Joe, that's one of the things that's a deal breaker. Tolerance only goes so far and allowances can be made under certain circumstances.....but not for shit like this.

If you fail to see that in this situation, it's a liability to the forum having a poster that doesn't know where appropriate behavior ends and inappropriate behavior begins, .....then maybe you need to reevaluate your own morality.



It's probably best that you take Shen's extremely heartfelt advice and fuck off back to Van4um.

Absolutely Renee.

[Renee]

And we have Joe trying to justify it.

Gross.

Nope. And can you show me where I stated that?



I stated that I thought an outright ban of the poster in question was excessive & that the situation could be remedied merely by pulling the offending picture. The next step would be to issue a warning to him to refrain from repeating the same action. And then issuing an outright ban if he did not comply.I did state the pulling the picture from the forum was appropriate if a majority of posters assented.



Perhaps this consensus does not apply on another forum, but it does apply here. So that's OK. Incidentally, 'Real this is the same approach I've advocated on any other forum - that if a sufficient number of posters raise what they believe to be offensive in nature based upon legitimate concerns, then the majority rules.



However I do believe that you are allowing your personal dislike of $20 to cloud your judgement and that you are reacting vindictively towards him rather than rationally.

Why are you beating this dead horse?........do you have some kind of weird vested emotional interest in have that old creep here?



Advocating for an individual that has a penchant for posting inappropriate pics of naked childern is down right disturbing. If you weren't creepy enough before......you sure as hell are now.  

[kiebers]

Let me break it down for you J0E. A simple YES or NO is all that is needed.

Do you disagree with this statement? YES or NO

1) Anyone that uses pics of naked kids as [size=120]troll fodder[/size] deserves to be banned and shamed where ever he goes.

Well that's only your opinion kiebers.



I didn't care much for that pic and as I have said repeatedly from the beginning, that if a sufficient number of people here didn't like the offending photos $20 posted, then by all means pull them from this forum. Take them down! That is your right. And its democratic if it is the majority here.



Anyways I have little interest in the portrayal of children in art, photographs and have always felt uncomfortable viewing them naked. Wasn't there that famous statue in Europe somewhere of a little boy peeing in a pond? I believe at least until recently it was considered a great classical piece of art. Of course today, if an artist unveilled that he'd likely be considered a pedolphile. Whatever the intent, that work always made me feel uneasy looking at it.

Still waiting J0E.

[RW]

And you'll keep waiting kiebs.

[Angry White Male]

Was it those two kids with the bird?

[kiebers]

Was it those two kids with the bird?

Yes and the first time it was used was fine because it was in the correct context. It was using it as troll bait that crossed the line with many of us.

[Angry White Male]

I've seen that before.  I personally didn't think it crossed any line, since it was harmless.



However, I never like anything to get too spammed up, so if that's what he did...

[kiebers]

From a National Geographic standpoint its cool.

[Anonymous]

I did not like Twenty Dollars. Rude and dumb are the two words that come to mind when he is mentioned. I can't say that I will miss him.

[Blurt]

However, I never like anything to get too spammed up...

 ac_wot



 ac_lmfao

[Angry White Male]

I do believe I agree with Joe, that the image was used as an excuse to boot him.



I've had to decide on dozens of questionable images on DV.  Anything from hard core kiddy prawn, to fully clothed adults which somehow got reported.



Generally there is nothing wrong with images of kids.  A couple of guidelines I used were:  Any exposed genitalia?  Anything sexually suggestive?  Anything posted with pic like, "I want sex with them."  Obviously these are in bad taste at the least, to illegal at the most.



The image that 20 posted doesn't even borderline on questionable, in my opinion.



The forum didn't like him, so used the pic as an excuse.



Like me or hate me, that is my opinion, and I am usually right.

[Renee]

Mel and Joe......two of the biggest mental deficits to ever grace a forum, don't get it. :001_rolleyes:



Should we be surprised?........

[Anonymous]

I do believe I agree with Joe, that the image was used as an excuse to boot him.



I've had to decide on dozens of questionable images on DV.  Anything from hard core kiddy prawn, to fully clothed adults which somehow got reported.



Generally there is nothing wrong with images of kids.  A couple of guidelines I used were:  Any exposed genitalia?  Anything sexually suggestive?  Anything posted with pic like, "I want sex with them."  Obviously these are in bad taste at the least, to illegal at the most.



The image that 20 posted doesn't even borderline on questionable, in my opinion.



The forum didn't like him, so used the pic as an excuse.



Like me or hate me, that is my opinion, and I am usually right.

The case is closed.

[Angry White Male]

What I state is correct.  And knowing how poorly this place has been modded, perhaps it not always a bad thing to read what more experienced individuals have to say, since my advice doesn't cost anyone a cent.

[Anonymous]

What I state is correct.  And knowing how poorly this place has been modded, perhaps it not always a bad thing to read what more experienced individuals have to say, since my advice doesn't cost anyone a cent.

What part case closed do you not understand?