What the hell is this?!

[marshall]

Not to pick on you, Vincent, but I'll use your comment to illustrate two ideas that I think are false.

<P>

<i>If the administrators at Photo.net can implement a filter then ALL will be happy. </I>

<P>

There is no system that will make ALL people happy; some will always come here and complain. The site is too big, and opinions too polarized, for photo.net to please them all in one swoop.

<P>

<I>Any arguments to prevent this idea are only narrow-mided and selfish.</I>

<P>

This one might be debatable, but I disagree that *any* argument against a filter is "narrow-minded and selfish". To play devil's advocate, if nothing else, I would submit that for many people, there are significantly higher priorities for the site's limited staff to spend attention on than implementing a filter that would be of questionable use, which is a reasonable approach.

<P>

And there is much of the meat of it: here, given that there has been no filter in place for so long, there would be no way for photo.net to say that "it's safe for you to come look and we know you won't see nudity." There's no way that every previous poster will go back and label all their images, whether they should or not. If we implement the filter and some joker ignores the checkbox by ignorance, willfull disobedience, or simply a failure to understand English, Ray's 7-year-old still could see an offensive image.

<P>

Please don't misunderstand me. I do care that there are resources for young people, and I respect that many people have strong feelings about appropriate material. I see no reason for blatently pornographic images to be posted here, though I recognize my definition will differ from others. I would even support a checkbox and the ability to filter out checked images, though I don't have great faith that it would be close enough to 100% effective to trust the gallery to Ray's, Ellis' or anyone else's young children unsupervised. I just think that we need to avoid this becoming some religious debate where folks on either side are painted automatically as prudes or pornographers, and we especially shouldn't judge people's parenting views based solely on posts here.

<P>

Not that it matters much without me hunting down a link for it, but I believe that the site management has stated previously that this isn't up for change in the near term.

<P>

[marshall]

I think some of my point overlaps with Bob's post (written after I clicked off to write my comment). Sorry for the repeat, and thanks to Bob for the succinct expression of it.

[phule]

<< Sorry pal..you are dead wrong! I have been a member at Usefilm for even longer than Photo.net. They do use a nudes-erotic filter and I have yet to see ONE SINGLE IMAGE sneak through >>

 

Sorry, Vincent. I know you're really worked up on this issue, but you can not tell me that the nude I saw on usefilm last December wasn't. I didn't know if my filter was on or off but when I checked it, it was set to filter adult content. I'm not sure what to say. I don't visit usefilm that often so I can not say how much of a glitch that was. However:

 

One failure by the system is a failure /of/ the system.

 

Photo.net has an image database that dwarfs usefilm. There's no way all of the old images are going to be marked as nude or non-nude.

 

There's no way for the moderators to keep up with the numbers of images flowing into photo.net without a serious impact on how photo.net functions. A seamless process just isn't possible right now.

[vincetylor]

Bob,

 

You have gone on record supporting the idea of a filter to reduce the number of nudes if someone so wishes. So we do know where you stand on this as well. Your suggestion in the last thread was very well received by many...myself included. I do question one of your opinions here though. You said above:

 

"One large problem is that though a filter might REDUCE the chance of seeing something that offends you, it wouldn't ELIMINATE it. Thus when you were merrily browsing away at what you thought was an "offensive free zone", with your children and grandparents looking over your shoulder, and suddenly came across an explicit nude that the photographer had not classified correctly, you'd be even more upset than you are now!"

 

My answer to this is a resounding NO. The reason is because at least something would have been done to address this issue. Naturally, you would want to see what happened. Did the photographer forget to mark the box? Does it happen over and over again with this same individual?? If someone decided they simply would not cooperate, then they would eventually be banned altogether. We would all catch on rather quickly. It's truly a WIN-WIN situation since we can all have what we want at the same time.

 

As it is pornographic images are posted from time to time despite warnings not to. And most are deleted. It happens. At least this way something will have been done to make viewing the gallery a much more pleasant experience for the many that do share these views. I have also stated in the past and will repeat: I believe that you will increase the total number of visitors to Photo.net by implementing some type of Nudes/erotica filter. People from all sides of the issue would be satisfied. Like Gerald said in the last thread..."it really is a no brainer"!! Many agree.

[vincetylor]

Marshall,

 

We all certainly respect the hardware issues that can make any implementations a concern. So you are correct in correcting me from that standpoint. It is from the freedom to have a "choice" point of view that I make that statement. Those arguments really are lame in my opinion. And again, they are just selfish and narrow-mided views! Something you'd hear from the 60s.

[keith_merrill]

It seems that a filter might, might, exist to filter out nude photo's if the box is checked. So what. Are nudes not supposed to be posted to photo.net. From what I understand this thread is not about nude photos its about pornography. It is completely different. It is also about whether this site should be suitable for viewing by a a 7 year old. I have been on this site for a while now and this is the first possible "porn" picture I have come across, and it had to be fed to me by an irate father. Maybe I am just not looking for it. Ray asks " But please, put yourself in my shoes and ask yourself if you would share crap like �Ghost� with your 7 year old daughter?" Well, no Ray, I wouldn't, but I also wouldn't have my 7 year old daughter looking at this site. I would imagine it would be over her head.

[bobatkins]

While I may think a filter isn't a bad idea in priciple, I don't know if it's a good idea in practice. It's yet another database check on every image served. How much will that increase the server loading? What will that do to system performance? If we have a filter does that put photo.net under any increased legal obligation to make sure the filter works (and don't try to answer that unless you are a lawyer trained in civil litigation).

 

It's not as simple as some people may imagine. There may be many more factors involved than you are aware of.

 

Personally I'd favor a checkbox which said "This image is suitable for viewing by anyone of any age, any religion any culture and any degree of sensitivity". Then those who wanted only to look at images of pets, babies (full dressed babies) and landscapes would be safe to browse here - unless someone deliberately set out to upset them. So even that wouldn't be 100% safe...

 

Usual disclaimer. I don't speak for photo.net and my views do not reflect those of photo.net management

[ketchemr]

I would love to see a nude filter installed on this site. With the constant nudes being posted and seen in Top Photos, I do not recommend this site to others. I would love to share and support this resource, and this one issue stops me. Actually, this one issue will have me looking at, and supporting, usefilm instead of photo.net. I really like photo.net, though, so would prefer to stay here with filters.

 

As for the arguments people are making about pre-viewing the site before showing it to a 7 year old, that is crazy. The only option is to not show it to her at all since nudes pop up often and are on dynamic pages.

[pdoyle]

Personally, I'm not asking for any guarantee that I would never see a nude if there were a filter. I understand that such a system would be imperfect, but a 60% or 80% improvement would still be an improvement nevertheless, for those here who care about such things.

[Jerry_]

You could try:

 

 

http://www.photocritique.net/

 

 

 

that site allow zero nudes / porn / body parts in the images posted.

[bobatkins]

I presume that devoute Muslims would be offended by "binkini clad babes". Should photo.net filter those out too, or do we just filter out things that fundamentalist Christians don't like? or Baptists, or Catholics, or Agnostics or Secular Humanists?

 

Bt the way, I'm NOT, repeat, NOT photo.net management. These opinion's are mine, not photo.net's

[james_oneill]

<b>Vincent.</b> Shall we re-cap ? I think images like the one that angered Ray should not be on photo.net. You want them here with a filter to stop them being seen by some. (So you're arguing for porn, and I'm against - funny old world eh ? ) <p>

 

You refused to define what should be flagged and what should not. I don't beleive you can. You said in the other thread that someone should be called "Oscar Meyer" because they were so full of baloney. And I said - in effect 'right back at ya' unless I see you define what must be flagged I will continue to beleive that. You did give a definition of nudity, which you attributed to Webster and I cited. <b>Walter</b> take note, you'll have to ask Vincent where that came from, the Webster I found on line is closer to yours than his. <p>

 

Now, <b>Vincent</b>,The photo in question is an erotic, and arguably pornographic image, but the body parts which are visible would mean that it it didn't fall within most definitions of what must be flagged. <p>

Now I have tried to explain this to you in the other thread first with patience and then exasperation, if the site provides people a route to look at stuff from individual categories thats great, but <u>asking people to brand their content as unfit for some to look at is deeply offensive</u> <b>Please Vincent, stop demanding that I put my work in the same category as Signor Pessini's and then insisting it doesn't affect me.</b><p>

If you don't think the nude has a place in art go and use a web site that shares your views. I'm getting kind of tired of "wah wah wah Usefilm does it wah wah wah, I've been on usefilm so long wah wah wah, why can't photo.net be like usefilm wah wah wah ": piss off to usefilm and stop trying to impose your views on other people. If you're a vegitarian don't go to McDonalds. If you're a morman don't go to starbucks, and if you object to the body don't go to museums, galleries, or photo.net. <br>

Vincent, as usual logic is against you so you resort to insults - it was your "Oscar Meyer" line in the other thread, now anyone who disagrees with you is <i>narrow minded and selfish</i>. I would call having bigotted views about the human body narrow minded, and imposing those views on others selfish. I'm curious to know your justification for applying the tags to me. <p>

 

<b>Walter</b> Do you argue that all nudes should be flagged in the same way or not ? If you don't then I have misread you're other postings, and I appologise publicly and without reservation. If you do - meaning you don't distinguish between Larry Flint and Michealangelo - then sorry that makes you a philistine ... unthinking animal ? I never said that but if the cap fits ... <p>

 

<b>Gerald</b> Brian has given his reasons why there will not be a nude filter. But hypotherically, I'm not having a flag on my pictures which puts them in the same category as "Ghost". Period. If I find them flagged I will simply unflag them. I will endeavour to see that other decent nude photographers do the same. What sanction are you going to use ? Eventually the site has to kick me off, right ? So please say publically which of my pictures I must brand as quasi-porn to remain on the site ? Or explain your definition of nude which somehow excludes me ...<p>

 

It seems to me we have got so far away from the original point we can't see it with a telescope. Ray explicitly said <i>" I�m not talking about tasteful nudes such as Michael Cohen�s and Pedro G. Cases� work. But please, put yourself in my shoes and ask yourself if you would share crap like �Ghost� with your 7 year old daughter?" </i>

 

So all those of you who I have branded philistines. How does your proposed filter allow someone to see nudes which are "tasteful", but not those which are "crap". Go on, I've not seen one of you argue that "Ghost" should be removed, but you are arguing that to see pictures like my own I should have to accept pictures like that. Explain how that makes sense.

[Jerry_]

Photo Net could 'program in the filters' and then charge anyone who wants to make use of the filter system.

 

 

$100 a year sounds reasonable.

[vincetylor]

James O Neill you said " How does your proposed filter allow someone to see nudes which are "tasteful", but not those which are "crap". Go on, I've not seen one of you argue that "Ghost" should be removed, but you are arguing that to see pictures like my own I should have to accept pictures like that. Explain how that makes sense".

 

Easy one James! Nudes, Semi-Nudes, and Erotica images would be filtered out upon request of the viewer. Those that cross the line would be deleted. I realize that it sounds very simple...because it is very simple. Yours would be classified as any of the above...depending on what YOU shoot!

 

James O neill also said " "wah wah wah... wah wah wah, .... wah wah wah, .... wah wah wah ": piss off to usefilm

 

Sounds once again like last week...you must still be sick. Hope you feel better. Honestly.

 

One more James...you said "I would call having bigotted views about the human body narrow minded, and imposing those views on others selfish. I'm curious to know your justification for applying the tags to me."

 

Lets focus a little closer on what you just typed out here...take a close look my friend..."and imposing those views on others selfish."

 

Now tell us James, please, if in your own words "IMPOSING" those views on others is selfish (like you just said) then how could you possibly try to argue against a filter?? A filter prevents anyone from imposing anything at all on anybody! Please take a few minutes to choose your thoughts before confirming and posting. Your arguments simply have no weight. Right now as it is nudes ARE being imposed upon those that wish not to view them. THAT in your own words is selfish. Well, we agree there!

 

I am not offended at all if you call me Oscar Mayer. My point was that some of the arguments as to why a filter could not be practical were full of bologna. I still see no reason to change that statement. It simply makes sense to many many other members as well. This would be a great improvement to the site in the eyes of myself, many above.... and goodness knows how many other people that just do not bother.

 

The key to these arguments being considered is not James nor myself...nor any one person other than Brian Mottershead. It is true that Brian is a bit more liberal than some. But, he is also very reasonable. Many of us do hope that you try to work something out Brian. It is an issue that is (as you can see) quite important to many.

 

Bob Hixon stated above that no conclusive decision has been reached. Can we take that to mean that some form of filters are being considered??

[gabrielma]

<i>"What the hell is this?!"</i><BR>

Well, at least we know that cursing isn't a problem there. I certainly would get irate if somebody cursed around any children I would have, but I wouldn't pass any legislation to ban it.<BR>

<BR>

All the children in Brazil, Europe, Australia, South Africa...well, many places of the world would look at the, well, granted, bad, picture in question and then be shocked at the reaction shown here, but I guess that point is a futile one. If you don't think burkas are a good thing for women, then blowing a gasket over gaudy eroticism is just another variation of such nonenlightenment.<BR>

The body is natural. Anything unnatural done to it is, well, unnatural; touching somebody's body consensually (as in "consent") is as naturally human and healthy as touching somebody's hair consensually.<BR>

Censorship will never substitute well-informed parenting.

[john falkenstine]

Interesting: I remember last year folks getting teed off at me and getting some flaming when I labeled a submitted nude picture as "boring and repetitive" without complaining about anything else and even urging some discussion on boring and repetitive nude photography. I saw the image about which the party above was complaining..I don't know if it was pornographic or not..but to vent off about it...sounds a bit hypocritical to me...Photo.net is fine just the way it is..The visual alternative is ready to sample, just go on PBS and look at some recorded versions of the Lawrence Welk show, where every song sounds exactly the same, (horrible and toneless) where everybody dresses the same, and only cliche songs are allowed to be sung by cliche people, that love dressing in staticky polyester.. I think all of us remember this "family conformity from the sixties" Sexless, tasteless, no wonder so many of our parents were closet alcoholics. While some of the posted pics might not be to a party's liking, the use of the keyboard will rapidly make that image go away...

[vincetylor]

"While some of the posted pics might not be to a party's liking, the use of the keyboard will rapidly make that image go away..."

 

Exactly! Just a click of the mouse gets that filter doing it's job.

[mmmee]

<i>So, here I am tonight, with my 7 year old daughter, helping her learn all about photography. Instead of explaining to her the basics of composition or something like that, instead I have to explain to her why there is a lady "spread eagle" with a ghostly man fondling her breast and vagina (see Pierpaolo Pessini's "Ghost").</i><p>

 

I believe that teaching your children is your own obligation. Find the sites that are suitable to your own situation. Brian has stated that photo.net has neither the resources, time, nor the inclination to set up a filter on photo.net. Photo.net was originally a MIT experiment. It was forums for people to exchange ideas on PHOTOGRAPHY. Not on child rearing, or any other preceived moralistic view.</p><p>

Let me relate a recent experiece I had in my search into photographic endeavors. I went to a book store to see what 'erotica' in photography might mean. I came across a book of black and white photos, far more explicit than "ghost' appears to be. In black and white the view is far more stark than 'ghost' is. Now, I would not have shown this particular book to my 7 year old daughter, personally. Although, The O'Neil may have shown it to his 4 year old. Its all within our own idea of how we want to teach our children. If Vincent or anyone else does not like what they see on the site, they are free to find a suitable situation for their own viewing. There are many sites out there now. My own preference is www.photopoints.com which has a filter for those who want to use it.

Why get bent out of shape about something on this site? Enjoy and learn from the information that is here, free for the taking, as long as it lasts. Don't go to the areas where you might be offended. Its a personal choice.</p><p>

Ciao, Baybees!</p>

[WJT]

To paraphrase Ray's opening sentences to this thread:

 

"When I first came across photo.net, I was so excited. What a great place to learn and share! I thought photo.net was the best thing in the world when I first found it. I was more than happy to support it financially."

 

It is, today, approximatley one year and two weeks since I joined PhotoNet. Ray's opening words above elicit perfectly the emotions that I felt shortly after literally stumbling upon this site. It was such a thrill for me to be able to fly across this world of imagery, visiting with so many dissimilar viewpoints on and of our planet, that the decision to support PhotoNet was, for me, a literal fait accompli. And I have yet to mention the storehouses of knowledge available in the Forums that have enriched me beyond what any textbook could have done. I still feel today as I did then. I sincerely WANT PhotoNet to continue and grow.

 

Which brings me to today's discussion. It is apparent that everyone who is engaged in this discussion has strong feelings either for or against providing members the ability to control what they view. The decision to implement such control can only be made by Mr Mottershead. He has said that PhotoNet is his site and that he makes the final decisions. This is clearly understandable and perfectly acceptable to me. He is the boss. And I may add "Long live the Boss and PhotoNet"!

 

Unfortunatley in any discourse involving such strong feelings and so many participants, in addition to those who are willing and content to hash out the problem here in the forum, one must also consider that certain fringe groups may desire to resolve the issue using other methods. I have already seen in past threads references to the possibility of letters to PayPal. One can extrapolate, from instances in the business place, of consumer boycotts of advertisers and the concomittant letters of complaint being applied to this situation. I, for one, would not like that at all.

 

My vocation is Television Broadcasting. I have been in this business for almost thirty years. As was my father. And as my wife is now. Does anyone here imagine that a multi-billion dollar industry of broadcasters and the manufacturers of your TV's would have nonchalantly incorporated a method of parental control of received programming (i.e. v-chip) without strong external force being applied?

Does anyone imagine that this system does not cut into the profitability of all of those involved?

 

We do not need that kind of scenario here on PhotoNet. We do not need the kind of financial burden that could result from ignoring this situation. What we do need is a method NOT of censorship but of member-regulated control; a method to allow me or you to reduce (not eliminate) the amount of nudity when viewing the Gallery.

 

It would be COMPLETELY TRANSPARENT to any and all who chose not to use it. It would NOT impact photographers such as Mr Oneil (whose opinion of me, by the way, served as the title for my ramblings tonight). I have perused his folders and most of his work is excellently done, among the best of the figure studies on the Web. But the genre that he focuses on is not mine and there may be times that I would prefer not to have that style of photograph appear on my monitor.

 

This problem is not going to go away. Indeed, as PhotoNet grows this situation, if ignored, will become a juggernaut.

 

Well, Mr Oneil, I guess that cap fits me pretty well.

[james_oneill]

<b>Vincent</b> The stomach thing is sorted so my body is absorbing the medication normally again, and I'm as close to normal as I get ;-) My language was a bit out of order telling people to "piss off", but what you want is available elsewhere. I don't understand why you want photo.net to be usefilm. Why not just go to usefilm and leave photo.net alone ?<p>

 

You say <i> Nudes, Semi-Nudes, and Erotica images would be filtered out upon request of the viewer. Those that cross the line would be deleted</i>. You have not emitted a single peep saying this picture cross the line, so as I said in the other thread, you would fill photo.net with porn, provided that it could be filtered. <br>

But now I'm confused. You have said all along that their should be a filter, <u>a single filter</u>, for nudity.<br> Now you are saying that clothed erotica should be classified as nudes ?<br> Bikini shots are nudes ?<br> Lingerie is, according to you, nude ?<br> A low cut dress is nude ?<br> So basically what you want is all pictures of people to carry the "smut" flag. I've got that right haven't I ? Or are you changing your view to say that when a picture is posted, the poster must fill in a detailed matrix of things which might offend people ? <p>

But you were the person who posted the definition of nude which said it had to be total and provide a full view of everything. Your views are a bit of a moving target aren't they ? You said<i>some of the arguments as to why a filter could not be practical were full of bologna</i>Forgive me, but you can't define WHAT is to be filtered (is clothed erotica nudity ?) or HOW it is to be filtered (one box or many ?) you've shown the impracticality very well. <p>

 

Consider the picture I have attached. I'd call it clothed erotica ; both the people are fully dressed, the eroticism, mild as it is, comes from the way they are standing. So Vincent, a yes or no answer. Do you want this flagged as "nude" because of the way the subjects are standing ? <p>

 

As for imposing views on others. Going to a place and demanding that the people their change their behaviour is imposing your view on them, when the people who are there resist that is not imposing a view on the incommer, they can go somewhere where people behave the way they want. I can't remember which site it was where the web-master explains his "no flesh" policy as "There is a lot of good artistic nudity in the world, but I don't want the job of deciding what is good and what is bad, so please don't post any". If I went onto that site and start demanding that he found a way of taking nude photos THAT would be selfish. Put another way I'm saying a view is only imposed if it changes the status quo.

[james_oneill]

<b>M.M. Meehan </b> Although I agree with almost everything you say, I can't let one thing pass without comment. i.e.<i>I came across a book of black and white photos, far more explicit than "ghost' appears to be.... The O'Neil may have shown it to his 4 year old.</i><br>

Actually I said <I>My daughter turned 4 two weeks ago and we gave her a camera. I let her see any of the stuff that I do (it's my "taste gauge" - would I let her see it ?), but no, I wouldn't want to explain Ghost to her </i>.<br>

 

It's bad form to quote ones self but I said this in the <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006vlC">other thread</a> - it was directed at Vincent<br><i>

"When I went to Copenhagen last year I brought my daughter a picture of the little mermaid statue. SHE HAS BARE BREASTS ! Are you telling me that is SMUT ? At the airport I could have picked her up a copy of "Inter-racial lesbian goat buggerers #7"*. I can make a distinction. But you don't distinguish between kinds of nudity. <br><br>

 

* They do sell porn DVDs at Copenhagen airport - but I made the title up.<br>

Go on, you were wondering</i><p>

 

It's the people who can't distinguish between the little mermaid (or the other acknowledged art) and porn and want all nudity lumped together who wind me up (as if anyone couldn't tell !). Which brings me to ... <b>Walter</b> I called you a philistine and you didn't home in on it, although characterizing your posts as bleating really seems to have hit a nerve. Actually your last post has more thinking in it that most in this thead. <br>

What is interesting when you bring up the v-chip is this: no other country in the world has it. Since it came in is there any evidence that Americian children see less violence on their TV screens, or that adults get a better choice of programs ? As Vincent pointed out in that other thread, there is no nudity on American TV. In Europe, we think nothing of it. But on the other side of the Atlantic there seem to be people, many describing themselves as "christians", although their behaviour is at odds with Christ's message - who work tirelessly to get anything involving the body removed from view. These people form a very vocal lobby group. It beats me why they can't put their energies into reducing the amount of killing which plagues America, including the execution of children by the state see <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3076349.stm">this bbc news story</a>, but I guess that sort of thing is OK because the people who die are mostly black, So working against artistic representation of the beauty of the human body is a great thing for them to do. <p>

With an overhaul of the categories (why do we have "other" and "Uncategorized", "Pets" and "Nature" but nothing for farm or Zoo animals - why not "Animals", and "Plants/Flowers" why no Landscape ?) and the ability to go to specific categories hopefully the problem will ease. Those people who are sick of flowers and kittens won't have to see them, those who want to avoid "Violence, guts and gore" could stay away from news/reportage, and those who don't like even fine art nudes can stay out of fine art. <br> Let's also be in no doubt that if we want real porn off the site (and if I were made to draw a line I think "Ghost" is beyond it), then someone has to remove it. If you want someone to be there, then that means paying your way.

[vincetylor]

I am happy to hear you are feeling better James! At least before there was an excuse...(kidding)

 

You keep bringing up the fact that I have not commented on whether or not the original image in question should or should not be deleted. That is simply because I have not looked at it. I have no interest in looking at it. The descriptions given by others above are sufficient enough for me to say don't bother! This thread (as well as last weeks thread) are not about any one single image. They are about people being given some type of an OPTION to avoid these types of images altogether.

 

It is quite obvious that at this time there is not any option at all. You want to go into the gallery, you will be surrounded with nude/semi-nude and erotic images (yes kittens and flowers as well). Rather than just pack up my bags and go to one of these other sites (or get out altogether...cause there sure are plenty of other things I can get done) I am simply trying to make a reasonable case as to why a nudes filter would be a very good idea. They would be an excellent idea because YOU James and every other person that does want and enjoys fine-art nude images would not be affected in any way, shape or form. You would all be satisfied to do what you are already doing. THAT sounds like a great deal already for those in favor of keeping things the way they are. You cannot lose here.

 

However, there is a very large number of people that are NOT happy with the abundance of nude images surrounding the gallery pages at this time. And they all have their own reasons as to why, which vary greatly. Rather than continue to tell these people to go elsewhere, pack your bags etc., why not see if it is possible that something can be done that might indeed satisfy these ones as well?? This is as fair and reasonable way of handling things. If compromise is possible, then why not consider finding a happy medium where all can co-exist? We've illustrated this in the past with the smoking, non-smoking issue. Where a non-smoking SECTION is available, most are satisfied. It's not perfect mind you, but works well enough. A non-smoker is still going to get SOME of that second hand smoke regardless (which I would assume is no different than having some nude images occasionally getting through some type of applied filter) But it sure IS better than being inundated with smokers throughout. Regardless, we can clearly see that some type of compromise indeed has been beneficial to all involved. In principle then, I believe the same applies with this issue right here. Basically we are simply asking for a non-smoking (or non-nudes) section at Phot.net. Nobody has asked that fine-art nudes be banned altogether....not one comment anywhere that I have seen supports that idea. We are simply requesting that an honest attempt be made by Photo.net to see if a compromise can be worked out that satisfies most all involved.

 

Mr. Tatulinski comes from an angle that should be considered a bit more closely. He has gone on record as saying that he has no problem with viewing many of the nude images on the site. Yet, at the same time he too sees the practical value of having the option to filter these same images out if deemed necessary...for a variety of reasons. Many others feel the same. Others simply are not comfortable viewing for reasons that are different. Some may in fact be *prudish* if that's what others choose to call them. The point is that every one of these groups could very likely be satisfied with the implementation of a filtering system. That would indeed also mean more supporters, more revenue, a greater scope of advertisers etc etc. This is not an idea that will in any way shape or form lessen the value of Photo.net. It only adds to it's appeal.

 

Yes it would be easy to just pack up and go elsewhere. Others certainly have already done this, and I too may perhaps follow. But the site has too many other excellent benefits to just pack it up without some type of fight..some type of effort. Some things are just worth stepping up to the plate for!

[james_oneill]

Vincent you are a humbug.<br>

 

1. You can't define what a nude is. Actually you quoted "webster" although it proved not to be webster, with a definition of nude which excludes the very picture under discussion.<P>

2. You say you want "a filter" to remove nudes, but you also want the nudes filter to remove clothed shots.<p>

3. You say you don't want to see nudes but if someone cares to look at the scores for<a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=1403251">"Taylor as a tiger"</a> or another one of mine, <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/ratings_breakdown?photo_id=1890066">"Zoe: infra red 2"</a> they will see that you have scored two of mine highly. Sniff, sniff, do I get a whiff of hypocracy ? <p>

4. You insist there will be a single filter, but you also say that people who don't want to see different kinds of things will be able to choose what to see and what not to see.<p>

5. You are unwilling to distinguish between beauty and obscenity; I would say that's a defining quality of a philistine. Or does your definition of that vary at your convenience as well ?<p>

6. You say that anyone uploading "nudes" must tag them, so the fine art photographer must put his pictures in with the porn. I concede that as a consumer I can opt to receive everything. But as a <u>producer</u> I'm not branding my work as smut. So if it doesn't affect me how does my work get placed in the ghetto you want to create ? <p>

7. <i>We've illustrated this in the past with the smoking, non-smoking issue. Where a non-smoking SECTION is available, most are satisfied. </i> Yawn. Yes go into a restuarant that allows smoking and demand that they re-seat all the smokers so you can have a smoke free zone. Put the people who want a cigarette at the end of a meal in with the cigars and the pipes. See if anyone complains about being imposed on. I don't make a distinction between Niccotine, pot and heroin (they all raise money for dispicable people, it's just niccotine does it for governments). If they're allowed I go somewhere else, to impose my will on the smokers would be rude. <br> <i>Nobody has asked that fine-art nudes be banned altogether....not one comment anywhere that I have seen supports that idea</i>If you have a restaurant where someone insists on smoking where they should not you have to ask them to leave. I'm not putting my pictures in with the porn. Your move. What are you going to do ? Nothing - just have a "Flag all porn, artistic nudity, binkis, lingerie and fully clothed erotica as nudes if you feel like it" policy ? Or do you eventually say, "Sorry James, but the rules of the site have changed and you must click the smut box or leave ?". Remember you said this filter didn't affect me. There has to come a point where you do that. So at which of my pictures does that point come ? Not that you'll say will you ? <p>

 

8. When I hear people shouting "I am the silent majority" I'm automatically suspicious. The number of people on P.N runs into tens of thousands. You claim <i>"there is a very large number of people that are NOT happy with the abundance of nude images surrounding the gallery pages".</I> Where are they ? Based on what I've seen they just about break double figures. Multiply by 10 to allow for those who <u>are</u> silent, and you have maybe 1% of the people on photo.net, which leaves 99% OK with the status quo. Ok I know you come from a country where the guy who gets fewer votes becomes president, but even then it needs to be close :-) <br>

<i>"Abundance of nudes in the Gallery"</I> is tosh too. Right now if I got to top photos, I get:<br>

Page 1, Male nude - folded so no "bits" are showing, female lighting study, genitals in shadow, breasts half shadowed. Page 2. Female "Health and efficiency style in Infra red", side on. Page 3 nothing. Page 4 blurred female nude by a window, mostly shadow, one breast visible. Page 5, Female topless - 105 pictures and the first shot with a pair of breasts in plain view. Page 6, a back shot with a small amount of breast visible. Page 7, female abdomen in shadow with pubic hair visible on close inspection. Page 8 Nothing. Page 9 Nothing. Page 10, Female nude, side on. Male with half bared torso. Page 11 Nothing, Page 12, nothing. Page 13 One female Lingerie, one male torso. Pages 14-20 inclusive. Nothing. 400 pictures. I've had enough.<br>

This, my dear Vincent, you call an <i><u>abundance</u></i>.? 10 Pictures in 400 : 2.5% which might offend the most puritanical person having a bad day ? 5 breasts, half a bottom, and a pubic triangle lost in shadows. This is an abundance ? For heavens sake man you're arguing that 1% of the people are offended by 2.5% of the content - 10 page views in every 40,000 generate offense ?

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Spearhead]

There's Gabriel saying something very sensible and everyone just seems to want to argue on. I get the feeling this is more about who gets in the longest post on the subject rather than anything worthwhile.

 

As a parent, I figure it's my job to make sure my son gets a good education - I don't see photo.net or any other website (except for the ones specifically targeted at children) having to provide for that. I also figure that he's seen enough nudes in the places he's traveled that he knows people have bodies and that's a pretty normal thing.

 

How a few people here got educated into thinking seeing bodies is a bad thing is beyond me.

[vincetylor]

James,

 

I am fully convinced that you are a speaker of mumbo jumbo..(which really aint much of a compliment pal). You appear to like speaking about things that are IRRELEVANT to this issue....again and again. You also appear quite limited in your desire to see all of the issues involved. Who cares if one definition of nudity was Websters or somewhere else? You know quite well what is desired by those wanting a no nudes/erotica filter. Yet, you are spinning round and round with your word phrases-meanings mumbo-nonsense that are cleary trying to take the focus off of the issues that are being discussed. Are your arguments really that weak...that this is all you can come up with?? I hope this did not take too long to type!

 

Once again you attach two images out of 4500 (in which I have rated) to prove what point?? That I am a hypocrite?? Those two images show nothing at all and certainly do not offfend me personally. There are many on this site right now that do! So once again you have turned to attacking the messenger rather than the message...simply because your own arguments themselves have no real meat in them. In effect you are clearly illustrating that the counter-points to implementing some type of filtration really are the flimsy, no substance, grasping for straws, waste of time variety. A CHOICE is being asked. That is it.

 

You say that that you do not want anybody branding your own work as smut. Nobody is calling it that...look around. So then fine, call it *artistic nudity*. Just be sure to mark the box hat says this image contains nudity. This way I won't have to look at it if that is my wish. In fact by your resiting this idea of a filtration system, you are in reality forcing everybody that wishes to go into the gallery to look at yours and other nude-erotic images. I beleive your own words quoted above called that selfish. Look James it's in clear black and white! Here, I will even paste it for you.

 

"I would call having bigotted views about the human body narrow minded, and imposing those views on others selfish"

 

By resisting he filtration system for those that WANT it, you would be in fact forcing others to either leave the site altogether or in fact look through images that are offensive to those that feel this way. YOU call that selfish (as shown above)...and so do I!

 

Your trying to minimize the numbers here is the biggest joke of the day! Whose really going to buy into that. For the record every single page that you checkd out had nudes but one page. Many had more than one image on those pages. Fact is: Nude images are all over the galleries. Your trying to minimize this fact and your other mumbo-jumbo lingo above just proves that you are not even reasonable...not even a little bit reasonable. Take off the blinders is my suggestion. Wake up. All of your precious nudes will still be there. Hopefully an installed filtration system will help minimize the numbers for those that feel differently. Aloha and good day!