Dirckman is seeing an English Literature professor that doesn't know what he's about and respects him for his mind!!!!  Dirckman is afraid she will find out he's not so smart!!!

Dmtdust wrote:

Dirckman wrote:

Dirckman appreciates feisty and apologizes for grouping all liberals into a single group....  Dirckman should apologize, he's dating a liberal!!!!

What, your new blow up doll is a liberal?

(Although she's more of a centrist & in all likelihood, they're all reptiles.)

I think it fizzled.  Everybody on here talks a big game and doesn't like to back it up.

Only 13?  You are a slow starter, eh?

Dirck wrote:

. . .  fucking liberal cocksuckers who came up with the theory of political correctness.....  . . .

I believe that you meant to say "well-meaning lollipop-indulgers" (Lest your intent was to draw the wrath of the likes of Alan Alda and his kind). 

asstomouth wrote:

I have to agree with what I think sofaking might be saying.  The issue is not about corraling threads that aren't safe for work.  And as Little Willy said, any thread can become NFSW at any time.

In order to agree or disagree, we have to determine a decent consensus on what constitutes eyebleach.  I would say anything involving death or dismemberment.

And, in my own opinion, "eye-bleach" would be any posting by yourself or Lurker.

asstomouth wrote:

And while we're at it, can we also come up with a tag for annoying flash movies that autoplay every time you load the page?

Dear Insipid Cunt,

I don't know where you think that you are.  Do you imagine High-Street as some sort of pseudo-prison scenario where you can gain a bit of respect simply by attacking one of the larger in-mates?  Had you not thought yourself so fucking cute by employing a well-past-worn mis-spelling of my user-name in an attempt to gain a bit of favor amongst the poodles and lhasa-apsos, I would have - In fact - taken your advice, disabled auto-play on the flash embed in question, and - Indeed - actually thanked you for having made such a suggestion;  However, you had to make an attempt to prove yourself less the whiny, little, fuck that you are (By the way, were you seeking a bit of feed-back, you have failed in this endeavor - Better luck next time, Kid).

Be here-by advised that you have been found to be a boring cunt.  On Cruel.com such behavior would have been considered a most heinous crime indeed; However, for better or worse (Guess which way I'm leaning on this one), we're expected to actually tolerate such behavior on High-Street.  So, for now at least, you shall be allowed to live.

Dreaming Of Impaling You With A Broom-Stick,
Clonazepam

feisty wrote:

Wow.  That's a hell of a response from Clonazepam.  I woulda seen it coming from, say, cocaine... or maybe adderall.

Dear MILF,

Thank you kindly for contributing your thoughts on our latest advertising campaign.  Now that you mention it, with Klonopin {sic} being long "out of the picture," our alternate personality (Okay, so, one of a few actually) likely should have a more appropriate title.  Rest assured that we shall be taking this matter up at our next board meeting.

Sincerely,
Dexedrine

I'm just going to say this.  You all have to take this up with Choad.  It's his board.  He doesn't want the eye bleach here.  Since it's his board, he has the right.  He may get angry at me for posting this here, but it isn't meant to piss him off.

Blocking any sort of image here (that isn't for a legal/copyright issue) is going to be the downfall of this place.  Banning anyone who posts that kind of stuff will knock at least 50% of us out in about 2 days.  I'd almost wager a good 80% of the regulars would either be banned, or leave on principle. 

I'm not sure what to suggest.  You all can say what you want about 'eyebleach', but it isn't going to come down to your thoughts as far as I can figure.

Personally, and I know I always scream about NSFW shit in my threads...it's not as big a deal as I make it out.  I try not to surf HS much at work these days anyhow.  If something filthy pops up, I quickly navigate from the thread and wait until I'm home to reply.  I refuse to turn off images because there are plenty of other things (like banners) I'd like to see.  But I am willing to take that chance.  So I say put it wherever you want it, as long as it is not copyrighted or legally threatening to any of the admins or moderators.  I'm more for the freedom of everyone to be able to post whatever they want anywhere, then for people to cater to my inability to censor shit at work because I refuse to turn off images.  The latter is my problem, not yours.  For the good of the whole, ya know?

Like Dirck says, if it shocks you, you shouldn't be here.  And Choad, I am not trying to work against you here, but I hope my thoughts are at least reflected upon. 

RT

Choad, dude, please don't Cadenhead on us.

I'm just trying to understand why we want to censor images that aren't copyrighted or are going to cause legal ramifications. Seriously, what's the point if you can't throw in the occasional offensive and shocking image?  A well placed image is often as valuable as a well placed word, and makes me chuckle just as well.  Who are we trying to appeal to?  The Christians and other belly scratchers of the PC world?

I've got plenty of thoughts to express here.  Soon, the dam will break...and my fingers will post a response filled with a tourette's laden barrage of eyebleach...followed by an imminent melt down further relinquishing my admin abilities, and promptly trailed by a self imposed year long sabbatical from all of Cruel's afterbirth.

Love me or hate me.

RT

I don't really care one way or the other, my main concern is that trying to DEFINE eyebleach, and then regulate it, will get us in more trouble than we're worth.

Choad, I have so enjoyed your postings about Frederick, MD, and although Wikipedia says you're a dead European race car driver, I'll take your word that you're alive and you're definitely talented.  However, whatever extra income this little board brings you (which must be massive, since we're such giving people) will dwindle if you try and impose this type of control.  And really, how often does eyebleach show up?  I mean real, serious eyebleach.  Stuff that makes you want to slam your head into a toilet bowl until you knock yourself into a blissful slumber?  Not often.  Even that poor dead girl is an old one that's made the rounds for a LONG time.

Roger_That wrote:

I'm just trying to understand why we want to censor images that aren't copyrighted or are going to cause legal ramifications. Seriously, what's the point if you can't throw in the occasional offensive and shocking image?  A well placed image is often as valuable as a well placed word, and makes me chuckle just as well.  Who are we trying to appeal to?  The Christians and other belly scratchers of the PC world?

I've got plenty of thoughts to express here.  Soon, the dam will break...and my fingers will post a response filled with a tourette's laden barrage of eyebleach...followed by an imminent melt down further relinquishing my admin abilities, and promptly trailed by a self imposed year long sabbatical from all of Cruel's afterbirth.

Love me or hate me.

RT

Love you? If I had a camera, I'd write your name in hot sauce the length of my membrum virilum, attach the telephotic-wide angle and publish the results for all the world to viddy. Sadly, I have no camera. We must enjoy the intimation of non-existent events. Sinthetic cyber relationships must comply to the gossamer nature of the medium and embrace the evanescent intangible. [Fuck me, what does that mean? Should I edit it out? Nah...just leave a long, self-conscious, self-referential note at the end of the sentence to deepen the general confusion. Crap - am I typing out loud?]

feisty wrote:

I don't really care one way or the other, my main concern is that trying to DEFINE eyebleach, and then regulate it, will get us in more trouble than we're worth.

Choad, I have so enjoyed your postings about Frederick, MD, and although Wikipedia says you're a dead European race car driver, I'll take your word that you're alive and you're definitely talented.  However, whatever extra income this little board brings you (which must be massive, since we're such giving people) will dwindle if you try and impose this type of control.  And really, how often does eyebleach show up?  I mean real, serious eyebleach.  Stuff that makes you want to slam your head into a toilet bowl until you knock yourself into a blissful slumber?  Not often.  Even that poor dead girl is an old one that's made the rounds for a LONG time.

If eyebleach so rarely shows up, then how can you possibly claim that eliminating it will destroy this site?  Eyebleach does send people away.  That's a fact.  The people who are most concerned about the eyebleach staying are not willing to make a concerted effort to keep it going.  Choad has money and effort invested in this thing, and if there's something that's making the site unpalatable to new viewers, then I don't see where people get off trying to give him grief over it when the only defense of the images has been either a) it's not illegal, which is a complete non sequitur, or b) I like them, which similarly ignores the intent of the original question, which is how can we keep the postings of really only two or three people from keeping new visitors away?

Most of you seem to think that High-Street is choad's way of giving you your own personal club on the Internet.  I have a feeling that he's much more interested with keeping the spirit of what we've all enjoyed at Cruel alive and well and one of the things that means is that we need new people.  And fiesty, seriously, how dare you make Choad out to be someone sacrificing the integrity of the board to try to make money.  Do you really think that for anyone with two brain cells to rub together this site would be such a tempting cash cow?  If choad can make some money off of it, then I'm all for it, but if anyone here is remotely interested in the longevity of this board then these are issues we'll have to deal with.  If you just want to ride it to its inevitable death and move on, then maybe you all should just shut up and stop wasting all our time. 

Are you (all of you) seriously saying that if choad eliminates the worst of the eyebleach with a criteria that you consider arbitrary then people will all pick up their toys and go home?  Are you really suggesting that this has anything to do with political correctness?  Before you hurl such ill-conceived insults, maybe you might want to head back to the word reference of your choice and take two seconds to think about what your words really mean.

I apparently came across in completely the wrong way.  I didn't mean what I wrote to be an attack, really just a warning.  Choad has done a wonderful thing by making it so that cruel did not die.  I just think back to the beginning of the end of cruel, and it started with a reasonable request from Rogers which seemed to keep growing with his fear of legal retribution.

No, I don't think that everyone would take their toys and come home, but nobody likes to have people hovering over them dictating what can and cannot be said (and images/symbols do qualify as free speech).  Alternatively, nobody really likes to HAVE to hover over people to police them, not in an atmosphere like this.

My feeling is, as long as images are not illegal, then who cares?  And if new people to the site have issues with it, then who needs them?  And when did it suddenly become an issue?  We've had eyebleach on cruel forever. 

I would like to personally apologize to Choad.  I am quite thankful for his effort, and I do indeed hope he makes some money from this site. 

If I had spoken my words instead of typed them, it would have been clear from my tone that I was simply presenting a possible scenario of what could happen if there is too much legislation on here.  I was sarcastic when I said that he was making money, which I thought was clear since I described *US* as generous, which we all know is not true.  I certainly didn't mean to imply that he was sacrificing the integrity of the board to try to make money!  (And upon re-reading my comment, I still don't see that interpretation, but hey, I'm not that intuitive and I get misread a LOT)

And GODDAMMIT TOJO, IT'S FEISTY!!!  It is one of the exceptions to the i before e thing.  Google it.  :)

feisty wrote:

However, whatever extra income this little board brings you (which must be massive, since we're such giving people) will dwindle if you try and impose this type of control.

First things first. If this losing proposition ever turns a profit, then anyone who's fundamentally contributed to its success will get their fair share. At the very least, I'd love to underwrite a big blow out. I spent too many years getting royally fucked myself to ever inflict that on someone else.

I got a visceral reminder last week how quickly eye bleach will sink this fledgling enterprise and it was not fun. I got reamed by someone in a position to give this site a moment in the national spotlight, someone who could just as easily kill it.

Why risk all that for irredeemable and indefensible images?

Imagine, if you will, someone asking years later what killed this site. If your answer is self indulgent assholes, then you win a prize.

For some reason, though, that's a legacy I resist.

edit: No one has given me a single cent for this and my income scrapes the bottom of the poverty barrel. I've paid roughly $100 for one year's hosting fee out of my own pocket. Your most welcome.

Last edited by choad (2007-11-25 21:40:03)

Choad, I do hope you saw my apology.  I did not mean in in that way.

Who wanted to give the site a moment in the national spotlight, and why?

My only issue is that it's damn near impossible to define what is irredeemable and indefensible.  I'm not posting them (except in the last thread, and if any of those photos were new to any eyes gracing this board, I'll eat cat poop.  With or without litter.)  so I guess my only dog in the fight is the principle of the thing.  But RT was right when she said it was your board, you can do whatever you want with it.  And thank you for it.

So what's the plan?  All this debate, and yet I don't know what the head honcho's idea is.  I can promise you that I personally won't do it, if that's of any assistance?  And I've been careful to use stock photography that I actually PURCHASED for my graphics, so you shouldn't have any copyright concerns with me.

Alright feisty.

I spent almost a week asking the admins and moderators for guidance to resolve a simple question: Is there anything redeeming or defensible about an IMAGE post with no purpose beyond shock and assault, irritation and insult, entirely unrelated to the subject of a thread?

No one, not one person addressed the subject, so I decided the issue all on my own.

Monkeyboy said it as eloquently as I ever could:

It's supposed to be fun.  Anything that's making it not-fun for you or anyone else, should get stepped on.  Hard.

Last edited by choad (2007-11-25 21:50:58)

Well, hell.  Image threads are stupid.  I don't even look at the fucking things.

Wait... okay once again my sleep deprived brain has mistaken what you have said.  I would have argued that if you want redeeming, no... I got nothin.  Defensible?  Well, the "shock and assault, irritation and insult," regardless of the subject matter, comes down to an issue of how much regulation you want on your board.  It's parallel to the classic libertarian vs. communitarian political theory... what is more important, unbridled individual freedom or community calming order?  There can be shades for your preference, but the degree to which you proscribe to either preference is really irrelevant. 

The question boils down to this... what do you value more... freedom or order?

I value freedom.  But I value your freedom too.  If someone posts something shitty, fucking delete it until they give you a reason why it's justified.  Really, again, you can do whatever you want, because it's your board.


However, keep this in mind... the irredeemable and indefensible is  going to happen anyway.  Rcade's threshold was personal and specific threats towards a gassy cunt that no one liked, but who deserves the right not to fear for her life even from empty threats on a message board.  One of the lovely things about user submitted content.  There really IS no good way to regulate it.

DoucheEllington wrote:

\There is already one way to detect "objectionable" material on this board - the report system.  Other boards have similar systems, and two things result from one or more people reporting a post or image: either it is pulled completely, or a cut is imposed after a statement that warns viewers that the post has been deemed objectionable by some for reasons of graphic sex, violence, or religious goofiness.  The viewer is given the choice to continue.  It may be possible for this to be a voluntary feature for posts.  If this site adopts the same thing, and it seems to already be mostly in operation, it will be largely self-policing.


And goddamn -- there's no way I can ever compete with handstand anal.  I'll have to redouble my efforts at yoga.

I had myself thought of the report system... but I don't know how much we're asking of Choad here as far as code development for that.  I'm an HTML person, not an applications person.  I would be completely for that.

And nobody can compete with a handstand anal.  That's why she's my favorite pornstar.  I'm gonna have to find some depiction of it somewhere, with a direct link and credit given so perchance she won't get mad and give Choad issues.  And I am all about bringing people to the wonder and glory that is Gauge porn.

This is just a message board.  Be pissed off if you want about me saying that.  What makes this message board a fun place to come [for me] are the people that post.  If those people go away, or are unhappy, the flavour of the board is diluted and we end up back to where Cruel.com was at the bitter end; vapid, washed out, and full of tumbleweeds.

Thank you, sweet Goddess RT!  This is what I was TRYING to say and managed to piss off the guy with the veto.  This has been my point all along... not that Choad is stuffing his pockets or that he doesn't have the right or WHATEVER.

I quit posting on cruel because there was a real effort, in my opinion, to break up the sad fraternity of bitter hags, homos, and shrivel dicks that we have formed over the years.  It makes sense why... the threats on that one bitch was WAY outta line.  But it just became too much work to keep up with everybody, and once everybody started to post less and less, it wasn't worth my time.  We were all posting on old threads where the people we were talking to never saw what we said, because it they were posting less and less too.

I don't want to lose you guys!  I really do (and jeez, this is just so sad) feel like most of ya'll are family.  I have formed quite dysfunctional, but quite real friendships on here.  There are a good number of you that I would do just about anything for (as long as I could do it sitting at home on my ass, and it didn't involve my tits, pussy, or mouth and any of your collective body parts....but if it meant type a term paper there's a couple of you who'd have it delivered to your inbox in the morning, I swear)

Why don't we just have more moderators to suppress images once there are complaints made?  Sort of like you can choose not to look at images now, but have it so that everyone HAS to choose to click on the link instead of have it automatically posted?

I'm sorry to interject, but when did we move from labelling or somehow corraling eye bleach to actually banning it outright?  Can you just tell us what the problem is?

asdf1971

gone

Last edited by Dmtdust (2007-11-25 23:23:23)

gone

Last edited by Dmtdust (2007-11-25 23:24:48)

Ehhh... thank you for that, DMT.  Talk about mixed signals.

I'd prefer this:


Which is a screen capture from one of her first movies, where she is a young girl left at home and the guy anally violating her is her brother's best friend and her babysitter.

You can see more of Gauge (c) at her OFFICIAL website, http://www.ilovegauge.com

Last edited by feisty (2007-11-25 23:04:52)

asdf1971 wrote:

I'm sorry to interject, but when did we move from labelling or somehow corraling eye bleach to actually banning it outright?

If you read that here, it's someone playing lying asshole. Isn't this fun?

feisty wrote:

Two posts up is someone playing cramming asshole. :)  Really, isn't it nice to be so well provided for that we can sit and have these long, drawn out, but ultimately worthless conversations online?  We are pretty high up in the Maslow Hierarchy of needs, my friends.  Pretty high up indeed.

As far as my needs go, I never tried that position anally.  Wow, I am feeling kinda deprived right now.