rich815 Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Man oh man. Someone please show this lady some real porn so she can know what it is.<p>Or just send her to photosig.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jason neymeyer Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Can we a a filter for flower photography too, I'm so sick and tired of seeing pictures of peoples flower gardens! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kelly_flanigan1 Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 This reminds me of my old grade school librarian/witch; her nickname was "old Mrs. Crow's-foot". She would intercept the photomagizines each month and then remove all that was too racy with an Xacto knife. This was before Xerox machines were out. She didnt repair the other side of the page; so articles and info would be lost.<BR><BR> Sometimes she would go nuts; and riddle the damn things full of holes; or remove the entire covers. This was almost 4 decades ago; when the magazines showed little. All the "snd off for undeveloped nude images adverts"; any bikini shots; any too much leg; too short of skirt; too racy images were cut out. A nice article about using BBA Photoflood lamps; and posing models would be unreadable; the photos of the studio setup would be butchered.. All this in the name of protecting "young minds". So we mowed lawns; sold crickets for 1 cents; and grasshopers for 2 cents; to scrape the money for the real magazines. WE LOOKED FOR ALL WHAT WAS CUT OUT; because we wondered what we were missing! <BR><BR>If a moderator here; she would probably want to "approve" every post; and delete any photo of man in public without a hat; a woman with a bare leg showing; delete any post with a spelling error; to be in control. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tom_moore1 Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 i have no faith in the community to determine whats acceptable in the galleries, when someone posted a beautiful photo, of a young blonde haired girl, maybe 6 or 7 years old...the comments refered to kiddy porn....i thought what sick f**ks, how could they see something dirty, while looking at that innocent young girl...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gerald_widen Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 The answer is yes. Doesn't matter what they say it is what they allow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lindsay_robb Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 I don't think we can use the word 'offensive' instead of 'porn'. I don't find this offensive. I quite like porn and harder stuff than this. What I find offensive is people trying to pass this off as 'art' like they think they are all talented when it's really just that they feel safer staring at pretty girls through a lens! I think guys that do glamour photography are pretty pathetic to be quite honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 There are two questions here: (1) Should we have some sort of categorization scheme which allows those who don't want to see such images to have a lower (but not zero) chance of stumbling on them. (2) What is "porn" and who decides? These are two seperate and distinct questions. Instead of "porn", let's just ask the question "would this image be allowed on prime time broadcast TV in the USA"? Though I hate to use this as a standard, it's something most people (in the US) have a pretty good grasp of. If not, it gets a flag and people who want to see it have to make an affirmative decision to do so. We're not censoring those images, we're not restricting access, we're just requiring the viewer to say "I want to see all the images, not just the "G" rated ones". I think we should avoid any mechanism whereby viewers can elect to ONLY view the "non-G" rated images. That way we avoid photo.net becoming a "naughty image" website! "Porn" we delete on the basis of the collective or individual judgement of the gallery moderators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sk_arts Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Tom- the thing with that photo was not that she was topless, it was that she was toppless AND posed as if she were an adult. I really doubt the intent was to make pornography, however, I don't think it was a very tasteful portrayal of that girl either. I don't think it said "nine years old" to me, and like I said, if it were in color I am fairly certain that even you would have been offended. Someone earlier said something about intent, and while I completely agree tht intent, or atleast and attempt at getting at the intent should be taken into consideration, if a good number of people say it's porn being passed off as art, the intent is obviously muddled! But this is no reason to take it down, but, it is a reason to ask the photographer what and why he did what he did! Also, when trying to tell if something is porn or art, ask yourself if it would be art if the photo was in color. I think a lot of these "dirty old men" exploit black and white connotations (as being artistic or craftful) to justify the fact they are making something sexual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spearhead Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 <i>would this image be allowed on prime time broadcast TV in the USA</i><p> Many of the photography books I have would not pass this criteria. Books with photos by Manuel Alvarez Bravo, Ralph Gibson, Noboyushi Araki, Nan Goldin, Edward Weston, Miguel Rio Branca, Flor Garduno, Diane Arbus, etc etc.<p> Hard to imagine ruling out all of this... Music and Portraits Blog: Life in Portugal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmee Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 None of it is being 'ruled' out. If you read Bob's post, he seems to be suggesting that you will be able to look at anything you care to look at. He seems to me to be suggesting that we make our own decisions on whether or not we are going to be looking at anything catagorized as adult or not seen on the prime time television news. Dead people or someone being killed are never shown on news broadcasts, naked people are never shown, nor are sexually explicit 'art' shots shown. There is generally a warning by the news media announcer if there is going to be anything in the stories that might be offensive, so that people who have small children or any other aversion to such things, can click the button 'off'. No one decides to click that button but your own self. This is a feature in effect on, dare I say, photopoints. Its never been a big issue there. You simply put a check mark in a small box and the filtering is done for you. Surely there are a few mature individuals on site who would be able to assess any photo that is not put into the catagory (lets call it 'adult'); as being 'adult', and mark it as such and thus put it behind the filter. What is so difficult to understand about this? It allows freedom of choice for everyone. If you want your children to see everything the world has to offer that is called 'art' don't put the checkmark in the box. But let's allow those who want to make their decision on not showing everything to children, their choice. THEIR OWN CHOICE. Bored to death by flowers and sunsets is hardly an issue when discussing morality and raising children, and is just a frivilous remark. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnlund Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 Jeff - Are art museums that post a notice and/or staff outside the entry of some exhibits "ruling out" those works? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 One of the reasons I stay with Photo.net is because of its adherence to founding philosophies, even when every reasonable business model says otherwise. It takes courage and commitment to take a position and not sell out knowing you won't win popularity contests. To me, the question isn't where to draw the line, but what Photo.net wants to be in the global community. To debate this endlessly serves only to nudge the site incrementally toward an ever liberal position. If that's where we're heading, why not just allow everything in with appropriately placed safeguards? <br><br>Alternatively, since this site isn't a democracy anyway, administrators can autocratically draw the line more conservatively (if it chooses) without popular approval. Where the line is drawn is less important - consistent indecision will cause more damage to the site and invite more controversy than boldly taking a stand. <br><br>As a footnote, I sent an abuse inquiry on 4 photos showing a man in various stages of erection and shaved genitals taken with a Nokia cellphone. I merely asked if this was against site policy and asked for no reply; the photos were removed in 2 days. If that was against site policy, shouldn't a photo of masturbation with a cucumber also? Frankly, as a photographer, the only redeeming value I see in many of these uploads is knowing how they manage to keep the flies away, but I will accept, support, and defend whatever decision is taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 <b>Bob,</b> why "Prime time US TV". Why not "Afgan TV under the taliban ?" After all we don't want to ofend anyone do we ?<br> One other site used the phrase "We will remove anything which could not appear in a public art Gallery". Which is about the standard we have here and <u>it works</u>. Having seen Prime Time TV on my visits to the US, I can't believe anyone would want something so banal. <p> <b>anna f</b> et al. I observed that someone posted "I don't want to see the kind of images that appear in Hustler". This presumably means they have never bought Hustler, so they don't know what kind of images appear in it. So how do they know what it is they don't want to see ? <p> <b>M.M. Meehan</b> you talk about people opting out of TV, people can opt of photo.net, if they consider the body to be a thing of shame there are plenty of sites they can use.<p> I'm amazed by the number times I see totally spurious claims to be "protecting children". I'm teaching my daughter that the body is a beautiful thing to be celebrated in its diversity. If you want to teach your children that the body is a thing of shame, and should be hidden away, that's your choice. Presumably you see passing psycho-sexual dysfunctions as yourself to be a good thing. I was quoting Philip Larkin a few days ago <i/>"They F**k you up, your Mum and Dad/They may not mean to, but they do/They fill you with the faults they had/And add some extra just for you".</i> <br>Ask yourself why Holland, with it's more open views on Sex has such a low rate of teenage pregnancy, and why so many young women in the US have hang-ups about their bodies which are solved only with plastic surgery.<p> You say <i>" anyone not complying with the 'adult' designation of nudes of any kind or other explicit material, should not be allowed to post again."</i>. I refuse to class my work as adult (my daughter - who is not quite 4 by the way - wants a specific nude for her bedroom and has asked to come on the next shoot with that model...) So let me lay down a challenge. Look at <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=342238">My most recent work</a>. Tell me what you would have me banned for, and give clear reasons. Once you have done that explain why you think having a censorship feature as described will not make it OK for all images to be posted, and/or why my work should be lumped in with porn. <BR> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikos Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 I think we should all put the porn vs not-porn issue aside and concentrate into user preference, taste and making the best value out of our time here on photo.net Even though a category system would never be perfect, and of course we cannot trust the individual user to make proper categorization, I am sure there is a lot to be gained from allowing people to browse by filtering out some types of content. I think that if the correct approach is taken, we could produce a community-enforced 'conservative' edition of the TRP. We could have a checkbox to declare: "This image is safe for all audiences. It would qualify for the kids supplement to a sunday newspaper, or conservative party pamphlets. It could be broadcast on a Saturday morning in the Kids Zone TV." There's tons of compelling imagery in photo.net that can be honestly classified as such, and a TRP filtered by this would allow people to browse in relative safety from work, or with their kids at home. Since checking this option would be an affirmative choice on the part of the photographer, there could be severe penalties for abusing it. As far as checking for slip-throughs goes, we could have a little checkbox on the 'critique photos' interface saying something like "I think this photo is inappropriately classified as safe for all audiences. Notify the abuse department" With so many viewers per day, and so many rates required to get within the first 5 pages on the TRP, it will be hard for someone to slip something by without someone blowing the whistle. And I assume that intentional misclassifications of this sort would be few enough for one or two moderators to manage and control before they reach the front page. Later on, an if it works, we could implement a categorization that would let us filter out whatever we care not see. There are days when I really wish for a 'skip flowers, sunsets and toddlers' button. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ray_vann Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 There is a fine line between art and porn...some photo.net images are crossing it! There is all of this talk about the definition of porn vs. art, but to me it is simple. I am teaching my 7 year old daughter photography. I do not mind questions such as, "Daddy, why does that lady have her shirt off?" That is not too bad. But I do not want to address the question of, "Daddy, why is that lady touching herself there." So to me it's simple. If it's art, it's okay for my daughter. Sad to say, more and more of the nude shots are crossing the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MichaelChang Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 James, the government of Holland needs to make choices that Photo.net doesn't, just as Sotheby's doesn't HAVE to place your used camera on their auction list. While I respect your liberal views, you do have a personal agenda that keeps me guarded. As for your daughter, I suspect you'll take a rather different view if she later involves herself in prostitution or drug use in Holland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 While I'm at it. Would someone like to justify to the world in general either <br>(a) bannning <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1874449">this picture of a fully clotherd woman</a> or <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1874433">this one</a> on grounds of the pose and how the frame rules on "adult poses". <p>or<p>(b) Allowing them but banning a picture like <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1817428">this one where the model has no clothes.</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 <b>Michael</b>(a) I don't live in Holland.<br> (b) You think that by telling her nothing about drugs (including Nicotine and Alchahol), I will protect her from them ? Or do you think she would be better protected by telling her what some people like about them, what the effects on the body are, and what the risks of taking something like Ecstasy when you don't where it came from I have a better chance that she'll come to a sensible decision ? Do you think any modern child accept "Because my parents say so" as a valid reason to do (or not do) ANYTHING ? The only reason why I never took up smoking was because no one ever told me I must not smoke.<br> © So far as sex is concerned, the same rules apply, forbidding it makes it more attractive. So education is the only way: this is how it works, this is why you need to be careful, here is how you can protect yourself. And I hope to teach when it is appropriate to admire the body (and that can be done without thinking of sex), the importance of respecting the person inside it, and that there isn't a single definition of beauty. I'd call myself a libertarian, rather than a liberal, but I don't think that line of thinking is confined to either. <br> The story of my daughter and pictures is that she saw <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1525115"> this picture</a> and said "What's her name ?", I replied "Lilly", "Why's she got no clothes", now I'm stuck "because we thought it makes a nice picture", and content with that she wanders off. 6 months later she wanders in as I'm printing <a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/1445057"> this one</a> "Is that Lilly" she asks "Yes" I reply "How did you know it was Lilly" (are all undressed women called 'Lilly' now ?) "Because she's got Lilly's lovely hair" Pause "Can I have that picture for my wall Daddy ?" <p> Ray makes a valid point, I'd rather explain why "Lilly has no clothes", than why someone is touching themselves - but I think that's just my embarassment - I really don't want to be discussing masterbation with a 7 year old, (or anyone else ;-) ) but I'm not going to pretend it doesn't exist either. [Another side story. A little before seeing the first picture my daughter became aware of nipples, and was told "everybody has them". "Even Grandma ?" - "Yes, even grandma". And she shared this with everyone. Of course we then had to visit grandma and waited for her to say "Grandma you've got nipples". It never happened. But it seems to me some here would have pretended that (i) No-one had nipples (ii) the non-existant nipples need to be covered at all times and never mentioned] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris_hawkins Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 All of us might as well stop flapping our gums and wasting brain cells on the debate. Brian isn�t going to create a way to allow folks to designate whether or not they want to see nudes. He has made that clear in the <a href=" http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=006Gae " > a separate place for nudes? </a>thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobatkins Posted November 3, 2003 Share Posted November 3, 2003 People can change their minds (even I can and I'm sure Brian can!). However you are correct in that if the decision to do *something* isn't made, there's very little point in wasting words on what that "something" should be. Maybe we need to rate on aestetics, originality and degree of nudity. Anything scoring a 5 or more on the nudity scale would only be shown to you if you check the "yes, I want to see the naughty bits" box in your workspace... Maybe we need two new forums, one for complaints about porn/nudity, the other for complaints about the rating system. Then we could just ignore those two forums and deal with the other site issues here... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmee Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 <b>James</b> No one is saying you should be banned for uploading your tastefully done nudes. Or teaching your child the way you want your child to be taught. I think the body is a beautifull, and wonderous thing. Think of the wonderment of how your eyes work, for example. All that aside, the point I was trying to make is this: Not everyone wants to see nudes, etc. or not everyone thinks as you do. Please do not impose your ideas on others. If we have a way to satisfy anyone who does not want their children to see nudes (I am not down on nudes, its the word I am using to differentiate or describe the whole gambit of 'mature' or 'adult' material) why can we not use this filter? We only have to establish the parameters of the filter. You do NOT have to use the filter. Let people who want to use it have it available to use. Just put your photos in the 'not for family viewing' so anyone who does not want to see it can by pass it. We could have a waiver or whatever it is called statement on the 'family viewing' page saying something to the effect that this is not 99% perfect and some 'adult' material may slip through for whatever reason. If any one sees something accidentally (or otherwise) put into the family view, that they object to; they could ask whatever moderator who would be in charge of this, to simply mark it NOT for family viewing. It would thus fall behind the filter. If people persist in placing what might be considered 'adult' material by the powers that be; in the family viewing, then their noncomplying uploads would be deleted. (another parameter -- how many complaints would it take to change the content to 'adult'?) <p> Your manner of teaching your child has little to do with the choice someone else might like to make for whatever reason. And I can think of many reasons. For one example, my husband can be interested in the learning channel's (not sure of the name of the channel) descriptions of operations on people. I cannot stand the sight of blood and would have to leave the room or throw up. Let us have the choice of leaving the room without leaving the site. Can you not see that? Can you not see where it would stop this arguement from going on and on? Can you honestly say that you want to see your daughter in the lewd poses in a couple of the photos you have shown us? </p><p> How to establish the parameters for the filter? Make all nudes, whether tastefully done or not, fall behind the filter. All enlightened children can see everything. Any unenlightened children won't have to see a photo of some junkie shooting up. Do we need that kind of education? There are limits, I think, that we can all recognize and apply. Please allow others to apply this filter if they wish.</p><p> I have never travelled in Holland or studied about it and know nothing of their system. There are nude beaches all over the world. And multiple things for any child to learn. But would you expose your precious little pet to the red light district, for example. (Is prostition legal in Holland? Just curious.)</p><p> Finally, re read NIKOS. I think that says it all the best.</p> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nikos Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 For the record, Holland's libertarianism over certain issues such as sexuality and drug use, has paid off enormously. It is a very mature society, and even though common social problems exist there, (as they exist everywhere) people learn from a yeoung enough age to recognize, understand and deal with them. I think John has excellent views on growing up a child, and I am sure his daughter will have a far better chance on growing up to be a mature individual with critical thinking, characteristics that will not only help her avoid trouble, but also succeed in almost everything she takes up to do with her life. But I also recognize that people may have reasons (either well or ill conceived) for filtering out what they see: a) People may have religious or other conservative predispositions against some kinds of content. b) People may be browsing from a workplace where a dim-wit can get you fired if you display buttocks on your screen c) People may be completely uninterested in certain types of photography (for example, I've seen enough flowers already) Now if we start *banning* stuff based on content, and doing it aggressively enough so that everyone is safe and pleased, we will end up with a quite boring gallery. On the other hand, if we set up a system where each one of us can *select* what they don't want to see, the gallery doesn't get any poorer (in fact there could be more slack in accepting stuff, since the easily offended can always use the filtering to avoid it) and everybody's happy. I have read almost every thread on the subject, and I must say I disagree (for once) with Brian on the feasibility of such an endeavor. It is quite possible I believe. It will not be perfect on the first day, and there will be some limitations to how effective it is. But I firmly believe it can be effective enough to provide us with a 'safe' version of at least a few pages down the TRP, which is good enough for most people's filtering needs. If Brian has any intention to reconsider a possible implementation of such a scheme in the near future, I've got some ideas for an effective scheme that is both feasible and not limiting the site's richness. I'm sure others will have interesting ideas, too. I think we should all let it up to Brian to take it up to another thread for discussion, if he so wishes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
james_oneill Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 <b>M.M.</b> You say<br><em>No one is saying you should be banned for uploading your tastefully done nudes</em><br>But who said<br> <em>anyone not complying with the 'adult' designation of nudes of any kind or other explicit material, should not be allowed to post again.</em> that was you, wasn't it.<br> I said I won't flag my work as suitable for adults only. Therefore you would have me banned. Or are you saying <b>MY</b> nudes because they are "tasteful" would not be subject to such a ban ? I'd love to see a statement of how you define what is in and what is out ? <br> I do not want to see a "nudes" area because that will make it harder to remove truely undesirable content - after all people can opt out of it can't they ? <br> You say <em>not everyone thinks as you do. Please do not impose your ideas on others</em> It appears that some people do not think at all, but that is beside the point. Who is trying to change a site so it shows what they want ? I haven't gone to a prudish site and asked for it to drop its rules, others have come to photo.net and asked it to change. <br> You say <em>How to establish the parameters for the filter? Make all nudes, whether tastefully done or not, fall behind the filter. All enlightened children can see everything. Any unenlightened children won't have to see a photo of some junkie shooting up</em> so you're saying junkies shooting up should also be banned ? lets have bigotry behind it to, lets have Leslie Hancock's "one man's meat" folder - or that very least the rabbit with its head bitten off, behind the filter, and before anyone says that just leaves bugs and flowers, my daughter is scared of wasps as are many of her friends, so anyone posting their bugs without flagging them as "Not for children" should be banned by your logic.<p> Of course I don't want my daughter having nightmares about de-capitated rabbits, or being stung by wasps, but its OK with me for her to see art nudes, so when the site is being re-developed to support your wishes, perhaps we could opt in or out of multiple things. You can have bugs, but not nudes, I can have nudes but not bugs, and we can both opt out of "Blood guts and gore". Do you think such a system would be workable ? As for the Education and the Dutch system, my point was people who talk about "protecting children" are generally humbugs: no one was ever protected by ignorance. <br> You called those clothed pictures of a woman "lewd", so again you'd ban someone for posting untagged pictures of someone fully dressed, but <i>Standing in the wrong way</i>. They're not to my taste, and I'd prefer my daughter to appear in pictures I like,that's only human nature, but when she's of an age to decide on such things, what I think is purely academic. If she wants to appear in hardcore porn I can't stop her. One can form a view about how women are shown in those pictures, but I pinged the photographer to say I had linked to them - part of his response was <em>I'd like to think I glorify the women...cuz I truly worship them all...</em> If you accept that who is going to frame the rules that says one form of worship is OK and another isn't ? <p> <b>Nikos</b> <em> a) People may have religious or other conservative predispositions against some kinds of content. </em><br> So why can't they use sites which don't allow that. <br><em> b) People may be browsing from a workplace where a dim-wit can get you fired if you display buttocks on your screen </em><br> If you work in a place like that, how about you do your job ? <br><em> c) People may be completely uninterested in certain types of photography (for example, I've seen enough flowers already) </em><br> True. <p> How is this for a proposal I've made it elsewhere: People can already book mark the critique request categories. How about the ability to select "Top architecture", "Top Nature" etc on the TRP page - that is minimal work and needs only new queries, not new input or database pages or output templates. Again people can bookmark those query pages. Then tidy up the categories, why do we have "other" and "uncategorised". Why Pets, and nature - where do zoo animals go ? Why not have animals and plants as categories instead ? Why is there no landscape category ? As it stands Nudes and Still Lifes share "fine art" with landscape. I'm not sure if we need a nudes category, but they could be kept out of portraits and digital alterations. That's more work, and needs consultation, but it is still less than complex opt in / out scenarios. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scott bulger Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 I have to concur that all this talk about banning is just a smokescreen being sent up by the "lets see everything crowd" to try to alarm the rest of the public as to censorship. Nobody wants to ban anything. People just want to let their kids browse or browse themselves while at work without being struck in the face with an 8x10 of a cucumber in a compromising position. If you want to see the cucumber you can. You would be able to see all images that you wanted to see, but people that didn't want to see them wouldn't be forced to. As far as being banned from the site for not complying with the rules, of course you could be, and you should be banned if you don't follow the rules. People are banned for posting others work, a clear violation of the rules. If it was the sites rule to designate your images as having "adult content" and you refused for whatever misguided reason, you too, should be banned. This is a site for the masses. The site administrators should make the right decision, even if it upsets a few vocal chords. Make the right decision and take the heat. Too many excuses have been offerred up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mmmee Posted November 4, 2003 Share Posted November 4, 2003 You said: "You can have bugs, but not nudes, I can have nudes but not bugs, and we can both opt out of "Blood guts and gore". Do you think such a system would be workable?" I say: "Absolutely." I love a good debate as well as you do, but I have no time to continue it right now. I think you won though, anyway. I will send you a boquet. :) I was careless of the word 'banned'. That was not meant as a threat in any way. I don't think we should use this forum as our debating spot any longer either. The question Bob proposed has been answered positively by both of us I believe, and that is what matters for this forum. It seems there are others, too, who would like the ability to choose their 'channels'. It is up to the Administrators, in the long run, anyway, what channels they will provide for us and how they administrate them. (sorry for the poor grammer and spelling, I am in too much of a hurry). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now