Are we not allowed to have negative opinions and express them about attempts at art?

[Bushdog]

In this thread in adult

WARNING ADULT
hXXp://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=5299531#post5299531
WARNING ADULT

Bfrank rips a lot of people and says some very harsh things about posters who didn't enjoy the soft core porn photographs that a member took. He commented that this fell under the personal attack milieu. Is this true? She posted photos of herself, which some people liked and others did not. Is there a general policy that only positive things can be said about things that a member produces?

I'm not looking for a fight but rather a clarification of policy.

Also, if someone posted, "I think it is disgusting," because of her homosexually suggestive pictures, would that be out of bounds?

In a similar but I think different situation, a member asked us to check out a sight that ostensibly had her posing nude, and she was requesting what sorts of odd sexual pictures she could post.

WARNING ADULT
hxxp://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=5299090#post5299090
WARNING ADULT

Anyway, people made harsh comments in there, as well. Is this within the lines, or outside the boundaries?

Thanks in advance for all clarifications.

[mikehunt]

I just read those threads before coming here looking for further discussion on them
laughed my ass off. wanted to be able to post a crying baby pic in them
nothing in either thread was bad enough to be a personal attack, and for once I basically agreed with parcher, although even though I saw all the pics in the first thread last night I didn't comment on them.
I realize dvdtalk is sort of a community, but it's also the internet. post pics and expect criticism. can't take criticsm? then don't post
life's tough, deal with it

on a side note, that psuedo porn site was up when I first went to it about 10-15 minutes ago but it's gone now

[twikoff]

some people are obviously allowed to have negative opinions in every one of their posts :lol:

[Cool Kitten]

oh please. You post your tits all over the net- expect someone not to get turned on by them. A case of attention whoring turned wrong.

[FantasticVSDoom]

Ok great...Now Im sucked in to Adult Talk to go see what all this is about. Thanks alot.

[twikoff]

Originally posted by Cool Kitten
oh please. You post your tits all over the net- expect someone not to get turned on by them. A case of attention whoring turned wrong.

but Im sensitive about my tits :(

[LurkerDan]

You know, I don't know if I think they are actually personal attacks, but I do think they are inappropriate. Lots of folks repeat the refrain "it's the internet. post pics and expect criticism" or something similar. While I totally think that is true, just because it's the internet shouldn't mean it is ok to be an asshole, and quite frankly, that is precisely how some people interpret that refrain.

What I mean is this: post pics, expect some people to be harsh and assholes, sure. But that doesn't mean that *I* should feel like I have license to be an asshole. Those people are still acting like assholes; the fact that she may have opened herself up to it doesn't make them not culpable for being assholes, does it?

sarafina complained that some people said things that they would never say to someone's face. And that is quite true. Again, that is a truism of the internet, people lose some of the common courtesies that come with face to face interaction. But just because that is the case, does that mean it's ok? Does that mean I *should* have license to be ruder than I would ever dream of being in person? I for one don't think so...

In other words, while I do agree with this:Originally posted by Cool Kitten
oh please. You post your tits all over the net- expect someone not to get turned on by them. I don't think that should really give me the right (against the rules as a personal attack or not) to say "You are one ugly bitch. Yuck!" It may or may not be a "DVDTalk personal attack", but that still doesn't make it right.

[Blade]

Also, I think it's important that there is a bias on the forums to encourage people to share. To be excessively negative is highly counterproductive to that. It's one thing to say, for example, you think the pictures make you look a bit overweight. It's another to say the person looks like a fat cow.

Where that line is drawn is something the mods have to set. People aren't always going to agree with it, and I don't think it's possible to clearly define a line like this either. This is just one of those judgement calls the mods have to make to keep the forum tone at the level the mods/Geoff desires.

I haven't read all the posts in the threads Bushdog listed, but based on Bushdog's description of bfrank's actions, I think I can see where bfrank was coming from (as LurkerDan, in part, explained very cogently above), and I think he did the right thing.

[Ranger]

Typically, but if you dare say a negative thing about Star Wars, whoo, look out.

(ducks)

[Crocker Jarmen]

I didn't care for the photos, but didn't see a need to make my opinion known. I don't think it was wrong for people to state what I was thinking, but I was disturbed by the glee they took in insulting someone.

It remined me of those people who drive by you in their in car, screaming 'Faggot!' or 'Fuck you!' as they speed past. I understand that they like the immunity their car or their internet gives them from reprocussions. What I don't understand is the pleasure one recieves from attacking someone.

:(

[Bushdog]

Thanks for the thoughts so far, but this is no rules clarification to me, just an explanation on why bfrank may have been justified in his actions. I really do NOT want to call bfrank out, and would rather focus on the issue.

From LowerDan I get the rule of --> be thoughtful in the tenor of criticism, but criticism itself is fine. Is that what we're going for?

Is the sarafina case equivalent to Mrs. Double?

Rules to me usually have consequences associated with it. What is the rule here, and what are the consequences for violating the rule?

Again, not looking to drag this out, but it feels like the answer is, "Be nice," and other than closing threads and trying to lead by example, the mods will not be enforcing the policy.

[Deftones]

I'd like to call bfrank out. :p

[Cool Kitten]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
I don't think that should really give me the right (against the rules as a personal attack or not) to say "You are one ugly bitch. Yuck!" It may or may not be a "DVDTalk personal attack", but that still doesn't make it right. so basically someone saying "oh u r so hawt" is ok but someone else saying "not hawt at all" isn't?
In other words compliment as much as you want, but don't critisize? ;)

[Cool Kitten]

Originally posted by Bushdog
Is the sarafina case equivalent to Mrs. Double?
no, i don't think it is. MrsDouble was promoting her site as well as looking for ideas, and Sarafina was attention whoring. Maybe she should've posted "no negative comments allowed, if you're not turned on by me don't post", then all of the negative comments would be out of line. But as it was, "look at my naked pics" is an equivalent of iviting all sorts of opinions, good and bad. So to me posting your naked pics for 100s or guys to see and then getting upset that some people thought she was plain- well, it just seems silly.

[Cool Kitten]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
sarafina complained that some people said things that they would never say to someone's face. And that is quite true. Again, that is a truism of the internet, people lose some of the common courtesies that come with face to face interaction. but would Sarafina pose naked for hundreds of strangers in real life?

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Cool Kitten
but would Sarafina pose naked for hundreds of strangers in real life? touche, touche...

[Groucho]

I think if you post anything in a public forum, you should expect to be challenged on it. That includes art as well as opinions.

Not everybody is a natural artist, and feedback is helpful. I happen to be lucky in that my submission to the flag contest was met with almost universal praise...but I wouldn't have been upset with criticism.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Cool Kitten
so basically someone saying "oh u r so hawt" is ok but someone else saying "not hawt at all" isn't?
In other words compliment as much as you want, but don't critisize? ;) well, yeah, sort of... My mommie always taught me "if you don't have anything nice to say..." ;)

Personally, I think sarafina is plain looking (of course even plain chicks are hot when naked! ;)). I don't think someone who thought that would have been out of line saying "you look plain to me". But, while I may think that is "ok" to say, I would never post that, what's the point? To knock her down a bit? If she needs to--as you put it--attention whore by putting her naked pics up, to boost her self-esteem, why do I need to knock her down? I don't get a self-esteem boost by doing that. But like I said, it's still ok, it's just not something I would do.

But posting "you are SO not HOT! :yack:" just is mean-spirited and uncalled for. Now I don't know if that should be considered a personal attack or not, and what the consequences of my "rule" are, which is what b-dog is looking for. It's just the way I try to live my internet life...

[Groucho]

It's quite possible that some of the responses came from posters who assumed that the original post was a troll.

[Parcher]

Originally posted by Groucho
It's quite possible that some of the responses came from posters who assumed that the original post was a troll.


I can say this was the case with my post. I recalled Sarafina making another post, a long time ago, that had attention wh0re written all over it.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Parcher
I can say this was the case with my post. I recalled Sarafina making another post, a long time ago, that had attention wh0re written all over it. nice attempt to latch onto an after the fact excuse. :rolleyes: "Troll" might have been an acceptable explanation for the Mrs. Double thread, but clearly wasn't for sarafina's. Not to mention that you posted on page 4; by that point it was clearly not a troll thread, sarafina had replied to many of the posts, and there clearly was back and forth between her and some of the others in the thread. Attention whore does not equal troll, nor does the fact that someone is being an attention whore give you the right to be an asshole. Common courtesy is something you obviously lack.

[Parcher]

Lurker> in no way is it any excuse or explanation or anything of that sort. I stand by my remarks, but I'm being honest. I did think troll/AW when I read her tread, and have done before when reading her threads.

I don't think continued posting from ther OP in the "trollish" thread equals not being a troll or whatever. I am being honest, I think she's an AW, and that's all. AW and troll are closely grouped in my "book".

[dork]

"LowerDan"? :hscratch:






Is that like "Lower Debbie"?

[LurkerDan]

No! :mad:

[MJKTool]

Originally posted by Crocker Jarmen
I didn't care for the photos, but didn't see a need to make my opinion known. I don't think it was wrong for people to state what I was thinking, but I was disturbed by the glee they took in insulting someone.

It remined me of those people who drive by you in their in car, screaming 'Faggot!' or 'Fuck you!' as they speed past. I understand that they like the immunity their car or their internet gives them from reprocussions. What I don't understand is the pleasure one recieves from attacking someone.

:(

Yep :up:

[Bushdog]

I appreciate the thoughts in this debate and respect all of the posters (expect for wonder that is LowerDan of course:p) but can a moderator shed some light on what directions we ought to follow, or rather must follow?

[Preacher]

She seemed to have decided to post pics and must live with the consequences. If we must accept both the posting of pics whether we find them appropriate or not, than we should accept the opinions of moderators in this Forum. I personally enjoy this place more when they are involved and opinionated. Creates less of the feeling that they are all drones working at a job and it makes this place feel more relaxed. Moderators have to represent their position at DVDTalk, but in no way should they remove themselves from acting as they wish or need to. They were all chosen for any number of reasons, including Geoff trusting in their character. There are occassions where you simply must speak out. If this is how bfrank felt than he should be able to express it.

And sometimes the person whose comments can most directly influence a thread, can be the one who only writes a sentence. And than watches its effect.

[Bushdog]

So what is the appropriate policy takeaway then? None?

I don't think I'm asking a complicated question, but I will be honest, I'm concerned that what is being laid down is, "I feel like imposing my feelings in this instance and consistent rules be damned," ruling and not something that is a consistent rule that can be followed. If that is how Geoff chooses to run his site, that's all well and good and of course is fine by me, but then we walk away not knowing what or what not to be careful in doing in the future.

[Ranger]

can a moderator shed some light on what directions we ought to follow, or rather must follow?


I bet if you had e-mailed any of the moderators or administrators, you probably would have gotten a clear answer right away, but with a thread like this calling them out, I can see why they may be hesitant to reply.

Just a thought.

[Preacher]

Bushdog what was the "consistant rule" that bfrank broke? The language was a little more colourful than you may have wished to see, but it being closed was certainly better than leaving that thread to continue along the lines it was going.

[Buford T Pusser]

Now you know how I feel Bushdog. :lol: I've asked for clarification on various things in the past and I never get a Mod's response. :o


I didn't post in the second thread you linked and only read some of it so I don't know how it turned out. From what I've seen in other threads Deftones was on the person's ass. :eek:

When I saw Sarafina's pix they didn't do anything for me, but I saw no reason to post anything negative. Beauty in the eye of the beholder, etc.


On the other hand I think you said a partial photo of Mrs. Pusser didn't do anything for you. You mean personal self-esteem boosting bastid. :p

Bushdog only: don't worry. I know you had to do that with CK watching you.

:)

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Bushdog
I appreciate the thoughts in this debate and respect all of the posters (expect for wonder that is LowerDan of course:p) but can a moderator shed some light on what directions we ought to follow, or rather must follow? rotfl

I read the first clause and just knew--JUST KNEW--that there would be an exception that included me... :p

[Bushdog]

Originally posted by Preacher
Bushdog what was the "consistant rule" that bfrank broke? The language was a little more colourful than you may have wished to see, but it being closed was certainly better than leaving that thread to continue along the lines it was going. I'm hesitant to criticize, which is why I'm going to efforts to ask rather than to tell. But in general, it seems bizarre to me to call criticism of some photos that some people do not like a personal attack.

There are plenty of good reasons not in a rulebook (or TOS) that require a thread closure. And maybe that's all this is, bfrank didn't like the tone so he closed the thread, and was honoring the request of the thread starter. On the other hand, his scathing commentary caught my attention and I was really interested what the policy decisions are. Not to be a hard-ass, but to understand if my current opinion is wrong and to learn what the standards or rules are that we are being asked to follow. Am I being unreasonable trying to understand if there was a rule violation? Bfrank pulled out the personal attack rule as a descriptor of what was going on, and I would like to know if criticizing other people's attempts at art is now considered a personal attack or not, or if there is something else we need to watch for.

[Bushdog]

Originally posted by Ranger
I bet if you had e-mailed any of the moderators or administrators, you probably would have gotten a clear answer right away, but with a thread like this calling them out, I can see why they may be hesitant to reply.

Just a thought. So you do not see this situation, if there is a new policy enforcement, as being an issue that should be discussed in the forum?

I do not see the decision to threaten a bunch of people and say that criticising the pictures equates to a personal attack as being an old rule, or an old way that a rule was enforced.

I didn't see bfrank's comments as aimed at me, but I did see that they could have far reaching implications depending on how his comments were to be taken. Thus, oddly enough, I wanted to work the issues out and/or get a clarification in the feedback forum. I'm trying to take bfrank's words seriously by respecting them enough to explore the implications of them. I think a number of people would like to know if something was a bannable offense.

[Groucho]

Originally posted by Ranger
I bet if you had e-mailed any of the moderators or administrators, you probably would have gotten a clear answer right away, but with a thread like this calling them out, I can see why they may be hesitant to reply.But wouldn't it be better for them to respond in the forum, so everybody can see...rather than relying on one-on-one communication?

[movieking]

I am all for chicks putting naked pictures of themselves on the internet. If I don't like them, I would not say anything. What benefit comes from it? It discourages other chicks not to do it, and it makes the original poster feel bad about themselves. If I don't like the pictures, I will avoid the thread, and skip similar threads from the same person next time. No big deal.

While I agree that everyone has the right to post their thoughts, a little common sense and courtesy would be nice as well. Someone took the huge step of putting their pictures on the web, and even if you do not like the pictures, those of us who hide behind our usernames and would probably never post a picture of our face let alone our whole bodies should at least respect that.

[Bandoman]

As long as there are no limits to how we discourage Bushdog from posting naked pics of himself, I'm okay with whatever policy Geoff wants.

[bfrank]

wow-

Um, maybe I was in a bit of a bad mood when I posted that.

However, B-dog you know how it goes doing this. I did not have a thread in the mod forum and I just responded to a few reports on that thread.

I think people that mean suck "." I dont understand the reason to post something just to be mean. I understand your example of the two girls stuff thought. If someone has a problem with a thread for any reason they can report it. But you know we dont need the members to mod the site.

Maybe I would ask what you would have done with these reports. Really I have always had high respect for you so I would love to understand.

(Blade, thanks!)

[Preacher]

C'mon people, let's be frank about this whole conversation. In our deepest, darkest, dankest heart of hearts we are all bush dogs.

Just let nobody get in the way of it. Simple rule.

[Ranger]

Originally posted by Bushdog
So you do not see this situation, if there is a new policy enforcement, as being an issue that should be discussed in the forum?

I do not see the decision to threaten a bunch of people and say that criticising the pictures equates to a personal attack as being an old rule, or an old way that a rule was enforced.

I didn't see bfrank's comments as aimed at me, but I did see that they could have far reaching implications depending on how his comments were to be taken. Thus, oddly enough, I wanted to work the issues out and/or get a clarification in the feedback forum. I'm trying to take bfrank's words seriously by respecting them enough to explore the implications of them. I think a number of people would like to know if something was a bannable offense.

I think it's really reaching to say there's a new policy enforcement. I took a look at the thread and saw that it was just going to hell. I also saw several senior members make a personal attack (the ones ganging up on a member that said something negative) - I expect them to know better than that. So I feel that the proper action to take was to be critical of those behaviors. Regarding some of the negative comments on the 'artwork', surely you will admit that some of the comments were not just negative but inflammatory.

All the above seemed pretty clear to me. (shrugs)

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by movieking
I am all for chicks putting naked pictures of themselves on the internet. If I don't like them, I would not say anything. What benefit comes from it? It discourages other chicks not to do it, and it makes the original poster feel bad about themselves. If I don't like the pictures, I will avoid the thread, and skip similar threads from the same person next time. No big deal.

While I agree that everyone has the right to post their thoughts, a little common sense and courtesy would be nice as well. Someone took the huge step of putting their pictures on the web, and even if you do not like the pictures, those of us who hide behind our usernames and would probably never post a picture of our face let alone our whole bodies should at least respect that. well said. :up: Originally posted by Ranger
I think it's really reaching to say there's a new policy enforcement. I took a look at the thread and saw that it was just going to hell. I also saw several senior members make a personal attack (the ones ganging up on a member that said something negative) - I expect them to know better than that. So I feel that the proper action to take was to be critical of those behaviors. Regarding some of the negative comments on the 'artwork', surely you will admit that some of the comments were not just negative but inflammatory. also well said. :up:

[Bushdog]

So where are classicman's warnings for all of his inflammatory comments?

[Ranger]

Uh, I don't recall him posting in either thread.

bfrank will tell you that he's been warned before. Any other members you have concerns about? Would you like to discuss every member who has made an inflammatory comment?

:p

[bfrank]

Originally posted by Bushdog
So where are classicman's warnings for all of his inflammatory comments?
I dont think I am the guy to mod him but I did warning him yesterday. But we have such a history from before I was a mod, I like to leave him for the other mods.

[Bushdog]

Originally posted by Ranger
Uh, I don't recall him posting in either thread.

bfrank will tell you that he's been warned before. Any other members you have concerns about? Would you like to discuss every member who has made an inflammatory comment?

:p Actually I was reading a smarmy comment from classicman before I clicked here so it jumped out.

http://www.dvdtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=5309822#post5309822

The larger point (so it seems less random) is that there is a lot of jerkishness that can go on. I'm ok with jerkishness being moderated and I applaud efforts to do so, but I'm concerned that there's not enough moderators to enforce it with any consistency.

[Gallant Pig]

The political realm and posting nude pictures seems apples and oranges and the two things are moderated differently. C-man makes political jabs, he also is on a receiving end of them often times and takes it pretty well. There's a lot of give and take in those situations. If rudeness in political threads was cracked down, a good portion of the people posting in them would be warned/suspended. On the other hand, rudeness in a somewhat innocent thread involving nudity but that doesn't involve getting back at your boyfriend is frowned on. Where's the give and take? It's a one way street of ugliness. Even in those "getting back at boyfriend" threads, I remember the mods were pretty lenient on the ugliness some members were putting forth to a certain member. Only when it completely spiralled out of control did any attempt to reel it back to sanity happen.

Now Parcher, I'm talking to you: just because someone is being an attention whore doesn't give you the right to attack someone. And I might say that in being so "honest" you are the one who becomes the attention whore. But one could say that was pretty obvious back when some pictures were "accidently" posted, couldn't one? ;)

Brett: good reply to that thread, you called it well.

[Gallant Pig]

Oh yeah, also mods aren't perfect, we are fallible. :P

[dork]

I kind of just skimmed the thread, so I'm sorry if this has already been addressed, but classicman is posting nude photos of himself now???

[waporvare]

nude classicman

:drool:

[Bushdog]

Originally posted by Gallant Pig
Oh yeah, also mods aren't perfect, we are fallible. :P Which I have no problem with. Also, there's no shame or problem if a moderator says, "It was a close call and that's what I decided at the time." I just thought that Brett's reaction (the words, not just the thread closing) was very strong and I am smart enough to listen when someone says something strongly.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by Bushdog
I am smart enough to listen when someone says something strongly. Bushdog, shut up and go to your room!

[bfrank]

Doing the best I can.

I still think that the post I made there we the right call. I know I used heavy language but I know most everyone in the thread and it was the mature so I though it was cool. But now I guess the heavy words maybe it made the point way too strong.

But the big picture is people should not say well its the internet its OK to be uncool to someone else.

And I totally agree that we have big issues in politics.

[Mr. M]

:up: to brett's comments. I'm very surprised that no bans/suspensions resulted (that I'm aware of).

[belboz]

bfrank, FWIW, I skimmed through sarafina's thread after it got locked and I was glad to see you lay the smack down at the end.

To me, that thread was just a classic example of how one jackhole can turn what was a fun, risque thread into a huge argument.

[LurkerDan]

Originally posted by bfrank
Doing the best I can.

I still think that the post I made there we the right call. I know I used heavy language but I know most everyone in the thread and it was the mature so I though it was cool. But now I guess the heavy words maybe it made the point way too strong.

But the big picture is people should not say well its the internet its OK to be uncool to someone else.

And I totally agree that we have big issues in politics. bfrank, FWIW, I too didn't find your language heavy handed at all. And I completely agree with your stand.

[Preacher]

Originally posted by LurkerDan
bfrank, FWIW, I too didn't find your language heavy handed at all. And I completely agree with your stand. You are so sucking up. Obviously we have another moderator wannabe in our midst.








:lol:

-I gotta tell you it was alot of fun to start the day with the word "midst" for some reason.

[WhoGirl]

Originally posted by belboz
bfrank, FWIW, I skimmed through sarafina's thread after it got locked and I was glad to see you lay the smack down at the end.

To me, that thread was just a classic example of how one jackhole can turn what was a fun, risque thread into a huge argument.

You're telling me. :lol: It's sad, really. But sad enough to laugh at.

Anyway, you don't have to always be positive and like everyone and everything posted. But you do have to follow the rules of this board, and that states that personal attacks are prohibited. This doesn't mean you have to be nice and always compliment people. It doesn't mean you have to be friends with everyone.
It means just use plain common sense and if you think you're gonna post something that borders on a personal attack- don't do it.

And if you're gonna say something rude, do it the 'right way' and make it very vague. That seems to work for most people... ;)

Constructive criticism over destructive criticism.

[chanster]

I'll just repeat what I wrote in the other thread. You have a right to state your opinion - my opinion wasn't particurly mean nor offensive. Yet I get the "white knights" of the forum, trying to tell me that my opinion isn't allowed. Get real, if you are going to post pictures of yourself on the Internet, you are looking for comments.

Except it seems that some people have taken it up themselves to believe that their opinion is the correct one and everybody else's opinion, whoever contrary to the original poster, is an abodinimation, a horrible name call and the such. Get real.


Ok it was better when we didn't see faces


Which first of all isn't a direct attack on anybody..I didn't call anybody ugly or whatever...then I get obsessive fanboys attacking me with comments like:

From RocShemp:

That was just mean, chanster.

From krkuhl:

chanster--if ever there was a more rude, completely heartless and hurtful inappropriate comment made on this forum, i havent seen it.

From Mr. Salty:

Your previous comment was one of the shittiest things I've read around here in a while.

Then you get people who say they know my intentions with the post. After that line of reasoning was exposed as the fraud it is, then they just say anything contrary to "OH MY GAWD, SO HOT" is a threadcrap. Makes 0 sense.

[chanster]

And you know, no one seems to give a shit that sarafina posted intimiate photos of somebody that didn't give their OK either. But thats lets just sweep that under the rug while you are at it.

[Jackskeleton]

It means just use plain common sense and if you think you're gonna post something that borders on a personal attack- don't do it.

I wish people would use some common sense when posting subject that may be considered unsuitable. Say posting images of yourself on the interent that are half nude. Hey, who would have thunk that it would have gotten some sort of reaction. Both good and bad -rolleyes-

Common sense would have told you that Homegrown would lead to drama. But hey, we haven't had any sort of experience in the past right.. I mean weren't you part of a little tiff against another member when they questioned your bust size? Seems like we have been down this road before. When will we realize that this sort of stuff doesn't end well?

Constructive criticism over destructive criticism.

Problem is.. any sort of criticism is considered destructive criticism, as chanster points out in the above post. It's a no win situation. And "OMG HAWT" is just the same as "OMG NASTY" because they are not adding much of anything to the discussion and if you said "OMG HAWT" to a co-worker at your work place, you would most likely be fired for sexual harrassment on the spot. Constructive criticism indeed.

[WhoGirl]

Originally posted by Jackskeleton
I wish people would use some common sense when posting subject that may be considered unsuitable. Say posting images of yourself on the interent that are half nude. Hey, who would have thunk that it would have gotten some sort of reaction. Both good and bad -rolleyes-

Common sense would have told you that Homegrown would lead to drama. But hey, we haven't had any sort of experience in the past right.. I mean weren't you part of a little tiff against another member when they questioned your bust size? Seems like we have been down this road before. When will we realize that this sort of stuff doesn't end well?

Problem is.. any sort of criticism is considered destructive criticism, as chanster points out in the above post. It's a no win situation. And "OMG HAWT" is just the same as "OMG NASTY" because they are not adding much of anything to the discussion and if you said "OMG HAWT" to a co-worker at your work place, you would most likely be fired for sexual harrassment on the spot. Constructive criticism indeed.
This has nothing to do with me or any past tiffs. No need to make this personal, Jack. I wasn't insinuating anything or remarking about you in any manner.

I'm not going to get into a point/counter-point debate on this with you.

Because common sense says if I actually type out what I'm thinking, I'll be riding aboard the Banned Train... ;)

[Jackskeleton]

I'm not trying to make it personal, I'm trying to state facts and situations where home grown pictures have lead to forum drama.

Ha, I see what you did there. You are thinking such nasty thoughts about me that you would get banned for such comments.. cause from what you posted above, it seems like you wouldn't have posted them anyways because as you said it:

"Constructive criticism over destructive criticism."

Riiiiiight?

Simply put. I'm not trying to get personal with you, I'm trying to point out that Homegrown pictures should be tossed out. This means forum users posting pictures of themselves nude or in situations that can be Not work safe for the simple matter that it leads to all sorts of drama.

then again, the forum could use more drama
http://petridish.net/pics/16602/Dharma.jpg

[WhoGirl]

Originally posted by Jackskeleton
I'm not trying to make it personal, I'm trying to state facts and situations where home grown pictures have lead to forum drama.

Ha, I see what you did there. You are thinking such nasty thoughts about me that you would get banned for such comments.. cause from what you posted above, it seems like you wouldn't have posted them anyways because as you said it:

"Constructive criticism over destructive criticism."

Riiiiiight?

Simply put. I'm not trying to get personal with you, I'm trying to point out that Homegrown pictures should be tossed out. This means forum users posting pictures of themselves nude or in situations that can be Not work safe for the simple matter that it leads to all sorts of drama.


You know, I remember this time when a guy had a picture of himself and his girlfriend linked into his signature. Another member remarked stating the woman in the picture was 'fugly.' The person with the signature got extremely pissed and the shit hit the fan. Remember that?
Oh, I see what you're saying. As long as it's other people that *you* don't have a vested interest in, they deserve whatever insults they get. Now that makes sense.

Also, you've misinterpreted my post.. but that's okay. I'm not going to elaborate anymore because if you don't comprehend it now, you are never going to.

[Jackskeleton]

HA HA HA HA. oh man whogirl. you are lame. Perhaps you should get your facts straight. I had hotaru in my signiture and the person randomly said something about her when they were trying to personally attack me (see, it was them trying to insult me... against forum rules rite rite?) and then I laughed about it, linked carrie to it and she laughed about it and we joked about it with the person that called her ugly. It was a laughing matter.

It was a fuck'n joke. You realize that? I doubt it, or you might have thought twice about mentioning it here because that example just does not apply. But really, if you want to try. Go for it. Once you get tired of that you may want to bring in something new and valid to throw at me for bringing in your little tiff with DTSC, which might I add was different. the guy who called carrie ugly wasn't given a time out from the forum because it was all a laughing matter. Where as you got pretty defensive about someone questioning your statement and they got a month off. See a difference? it's pretty fuck'n huge one.. isn't it? No action to a regular poster getting close to banned.

And as for your subtle little personal attacks. Just shut up already for fucks sake who. Oooh, I don't comprehend it now ooooooh ooooooooh, so you wont elaborate anymore? huur hurrrr -rolleyes- Yeah, that really falls under your "Constructive criticism" bullshit double standard. You might as well grow some balls and actually just come out and say what you are trying to say instead of doing these stupid little subtle personal attacks.

I already made my statements about this plenty of times. You aren't getting what I'm trying to say and I wont change your view on it, nor do I give a crap to.

You want to insult me? DVDTALK may not have PM's, but a certain island does. Go ahead, you want to tell me off, You got some shit to tell me?.. knock yourself out. I'll be waiting for that pm. If not, then knock it off here. I'm trying to make a point here about homegrown pictures. I'm not trying to drag you into it, but you are one of the examples I remember where pictures posted on the net lead to forum drama. I would much rather not talk about you cause I really want nothing to do with you. But for the discussion, your SITUATION (get it, NOT YOU) comes to mind as a good example. But if you want to talk your shit, go for it. you know the pm address.

[GeoffK]

Closing this thread. It's gotten ugly fast.