I have come across it a few times.

(Not in that way, I prefer porn sites).

Know what's really interesting? After the accusations of a Staff conspiracy to set up a patsy so as to close this thread and shut down the discussion, one person is conspicuously choosing to focus on that instead of continuing the subject the thread was set up to discuss. Someone really likes herring...

Maybe you could get to the crux of her point, which is that leaning on the low bar of what the law defines as pornography is weaksauce. I've got nothing but love for all involved, but geez, if female nipples are verboten, shouldn't male nips be too? Law be damned, she's speaking to principle. Why is that so difficult?

Here, I'll go first -- I won't post male nips in this post.

See how easy that was?

I'm happy to help equality along.

(June 30, 2016 at 12:45 am)Alasdair Ham Wrote: The point is we can change the rule one of two ways. One is pointless and the other is allowing pornography.

So you honestly think we should not allow man nipples when they're not pornographic? We should make something harmless against the rules. Ok... Lol.

I didn't say that either. I said that was an option, I did not request that the forum do that. I requested ownership. You can't change anything that you don't take ownership of. Some here got it and posted so. Others... not so much.

(June 30, 2016 at 1:25 am)Losty Wrote: Also, please continue to ignore this post, I'd hate for you to respond to it when it doesn't fit well with your victim complex.

(June 30, 2016 at 12:40 am)Losty Wrote: That's true, you didn't. I think some people were legitimately confused by what you were requesting.

I understand that your request was for us to create a new rule banning men's breasts. I must admit that I am oblivious to the purpose of creating a new rule with no benefits. I don't think we should have a new rule if it's completely unnecessary and benefits no one. To be clear, we did have a real discussion about the topic in the staff area. We didn't blow off your request completely.

I did not see this post. Sorry. No that was not my request. I never requested anyone make a new rule I merely stated that was one option. The other option was ownership of the sexism. There were several posters here who got and who were respectfully replying. I love it when it works like that.

So you had an actual discussion about the options or about whether you want to consider it? They are different things.

(June 30, 2016 at 3:09 am)Stimbo Wrote: Know what's really interesting? After the accusations of a Staff conspiracy to set up a patsy so as to close this thread and shut down the discussion, one person is conspicuously choosing to focus on that instead of continuing the subject the thread was set up to discuss. Someone really likes herring...

No I'm not but you are by this very post. Nearly all my posts were about the topic at hand. How does yours contribute to the OP?

(June 30, 2016 at 6:39 am)robvalue Wrote:

Moderator Notice
The discussion here has become very heated and personal at times. Please could everyone take a minute to calm themselves down, and let it drop. Thank you.

This is heated? Well, I don't see it but okay.

(June 29, 2016 at 11:32 pm)Heatheness Wrote:

(June 29, 2016 at 9:00 pm)Losty Wrote: If you want, feel free to make the argument again. I think I must have not understood your point last time.

ETA- nope I got it the first time

I believe the counter argument was

"If girls can't post their nips then boys shouldn't be allowed too! "

Or something along those lines.

Someone said something about a sacrifice of solidarity is difficult if there's no benefit for the ones sacrificing. I insist that, in this case, there would be no benefit for anyone at all.

That is the point. No benefit drives change as much as realized benefit. For every slight no matter how small, is intent.

You have the right to your opinion as I do mine. I just choose to at least considered the serious povs. I did not mock nor condescend a different viewpoint, unlike some. But no matter this thread is as dead as the stunt that killed it. Congrats. Guess that makes you a winner.

Just to clarify to the members and lurkers alike, there was no 'stunt' to shut the thread. The thread was temporarily closed (emphasis added) to allow us to remove the offending images without additional posts being made in thread potentially duplicating them, and also to take stock of where the conversation had gone in light of them being posted. This is of course a perfectly reasonable and logical response to take considering the potential fallout that may have occurred, as I'm sure everyone can agree.

The member in question, whilst a regular poster here and a valued member, was not and is not part of any staff decision making in any form whatsoever. Insinuations that they are are wildly off the mark.

The thread re-opened, discourse has continued.

Thanks.

(June 30, 2016 at 7:47 am)Heatheness Wrote:

(June 30, 2016 at 6:39 am)robvalue Wrote:

Moderator Notice
The discussion here has become very heated and personal at times. Please could everyone take a minute to calm themselves down, and let it drop. Thank you.

This is heated? Well, I don't see it but okay.

I've stayed largely out of this so far but I'm not letting this pass without comment.

This is a substantially different tone than you took in PM yesterday, which is a large part of why the staff is miffed. Not to mention the accusations you leveled at staff, which were incredibly insulting.