Ken wrote:If PSU likes, he could ban anyone he effing wants for whatever reason he effing wants, using whatever checks and balances of his own that he effing wants.
As vigorously as Jsc is defending 'slinger, you're sucking up to the fudge stripe. Nice work there, Smithers.
I'm not sucking up to ANYONE. I'm stating that jsc's defense is 100% moot. If there were some sort of checks and balances and democracy goin' on here, then jsc has a leg to stand on.
... and jerkovich, when you come up with some smack of your own rather than You go, girl'in from behind, will be the first. Funny how nary a emoticon was heard from you whilst the reindeer were around either. Props for that, pussy.
Gunslinger is a contributor to the board. You can agree with him or disagree with him, but he does contribute. That's why he should remain.
Apparently, the powers that be here have decided that 'teh funnay' (as Our Lady, !zzubevol, used to put it) is the only measuring stick by which clemency may be granted or refused. Either you bring 'teh funnay' or you are the butt of 'teh funnay'. You're right, that is their prerogative. But there aren't a lot of people here in Main Street, and not everyone can be a reindeer or wants to be one; so why remove contributors?
(blame this incarnation on mvscal trying to rip on terry, regarding pickpockets, executions, and captive audiences 1/1/07. and maybe rozy and psufan.)
Rich Fader wrote:But as I say...sending out warm wishes doesn't cost much or hurt anybody.
Ingke Bodil wrote:Gunslinger is a contributor to the board. You can agree with him or disagree with him, but he does contribute. That's why he should remain.
Apparently, the powers that be here have decided that 'teh funnay' (as Our Lady, !zzubevol, used to put it) is the only measuring stick by which clemency may be granted or refused. Either you bring 'teh funnay' or you are the butt of 'teh funnay'. You're right, that is their prerogative. But there aren't a lot of people here in Main Street, and not everyone can be a reindeer or wants to be one; so why remove contributors?
Why is this so fucking hard for you to comprehend? He wasn't banned because he wasn't a "contributor." If so, he would've been banned looooooong ago, after one of his many meltdowns. Ponder that for a few minutes, you dumb slut. No, he was banned because of the photos. It's that fucking simple. No other reason. Pictures like that aren't dangerous for you in any way, so you have zero personal interest in arguing for the very obvious concerns they bring about.
MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:No, he was banned because of the photos. It's that fucking simple. No other reason. Pictures like that aren't dangerous for you in any way, so you have zero personal interest in arguing for the very obvious concerns they bring about.
But this is fine?
Seriously. You do realize that the wrong female looking over the wrong shoulder
would consider that sexual harassment. I agree that there's no place for hardcore
sexual photos where everyone can see them..... but let's be honest about the
workplace. If gunslinger had hosted those photos himself, instead of hotlinking them,
would there have been less trouble?
(blame this incarnation on mvscal trying to rip on terry, regarding pickpockets, executions, and captive audiences 1/1/07. and maybe rozy and psufan.)
Rich Fader wrote:But as I say...sending out warm wishes doesn't cost much or hurt anybody.
#1 The sexual harrassment angle is a pretty big fucking reach, on your part; which I don't believe is really where the concern comes into play when it comes to images stored on our work computers.
#2 Yes, there is a HUGE difference between a clothed rack and XXX porn. Huge difference. Your fetish for keeping the argument alive will blind you from seeing that, though.
#3 I believe I also mentioned "intent" as the other key factor. Gunslinger's meltdown was maliciously-motivated. Do you really feel Jack's employing the same intent with that av of his?
Ken wrote:If PSU likes, he could ban anyone he effing wants for whatever reason he effing wants, using whatever checks and balances of his own that he effing wants.
As vigorously as Jsc is defending 'slinger, you're sucking up to the fudge stripe. Nice work there, Smithers.
I'm not sucking up to ANYONE. I'm stating that jsc's defense is 100% moot. If there were some sort of checks and balances and democracy goin' on here, then jsc has a leg to stand on.
... and jerkovich, when you come up with some smack of your own rather than You go, girl'in from behind, will be the first. Funny how nary a emoticon was heard from you whilst the reindeer were around either. Props for that, pussy.
1) On the contrary, one of my ex's worked for a man who had a sexual harassment suit brought down on him by a woman because of a joke overheard by her, behind a closed door. It's not a big reach at all.
That's why I ask about the workplace, and being honest about the workplace. If it is just a matter of what is pulled up by IT, wouldn't it be better for everyone to host their own photos -- in the same way the old hardcore .gifs at usenet used to bear really innocuous names? -- so that someone doing a sweep by name alone can't tell what's there?
or does it matter, and IT has the ability to see photos that have been wiped out of cache, regardless of the name they were downloaded under?
Ingke Bodil wrote:1) On the contrary, one of my ex's worked for a man who had a sexual harassment suit brought down on him by a woman because of a joke overheard by her, behind a closed door. It's not a big reach at all.
There are a 1000 examples one could provide to highlight the concern that is sexual harrassment in the workplace. Nevertheless, at least as it pertains to me and my work situation, a sexual harassment case isn't my concern as it relates to the photos posted here.
You're trying desperately to manufacture an argument that wasn't there to begin with, in order to help fuel your bent obsession to disagree.
So, in other words, you're being your usual tedious and annoying self.
Oh, and it's rude to start demanding answers to a bunch of questions after you've ignored somebody elses.
"Do you really feel Jack's employing the same intent with that av of his?"
No, I don't think he's attempting to piss people off with his avatar. His intent *is* different from Gunslinger's. I think he gets off on his avatar, he likes to look at it, and if he could, he'd probably sit there and rub himself off to it -- if he hasn't already. He thinks other people will like looking at it, too.
Will IT care about that, however, since the overriding concern here has not been Gunslinger's maliciousness per se, but the workplace consequences of his choice of photos. There are consequences for Jack's choice of avatar as well, and that's why I say it isn't going to matter in Jack's case, if someone decides to claim sexual harassment against him.
If I decide to use a homosexually themed soft-core porn photo or moving .gif, clothed but naughty, because I like looking at it, and I got off on it, and I thought someone out there would get off on it too, will it be ok for me to use that as my avatar? or will the rules change?
I've always wondered how IT worked, in that respect. How do they really know what pictures are being seen? If it's a matter of pictures, isn't it better to surf with pictures turned off?
(blame this incarnation on mvscal trying to rip on terry, regarding pickpockets, executions, and captive audiences 1/1/07. and maybe rozy and psufan.)
Rich Fader wrote:But as I say...sending out warm wishes doesn't cost much or hurt anybody.
Ingke Bodil wrote:Gunslinger is a contributor to the board. You can agree with him or disagree with him, but he does contribute. That's why he should remain.
Dumbslinger was getting worked, and he was too much of a gameless gimp to mount a coherent counter-attack.
He wanted out of the beating, so he wrote his own ticket out of here by melting down and purposely posted cock and jizz photos in multiple threads.
