offence resolved....

[Mr. Jiggles]

Good reasoning from my prudish point of view. i like the idea of respect. Go out of our way to ensure that we do not offend on this website if it is possible.

I can almost guarantee that there are a few here that would find Katman's censorship pretty offensive in and of itself, probably even more offensive than Katman finds the female body.

The avatar in question had such low resolution that in order to complete the nude "picture" (it was a satirical cartoon) you had to rely on your imagination. What I'm trying to say is that katman has set the threshold for crying TITillating (sorry, caps key again ) incredibly low. Where does it end? So if one of the female members wants to post a picture of herself in a halter top or swimsuit that would be Verboten? Sorry but the reasoning sounds alot like that used by the Mullahs in Iran where women are assaulted for letting their ankles show in public.

Maybe you guys should just get rid of the avatars altogether.

[Anonymous]

Why is this topic in Performance Mods?

If standards here are slipping I'm sure the Moderators will handle it.

[scotty]

I think that all the man requested was that any of his threads be respected in a particular manner. It isn't a rule but a request which we may choose to respect or ignore.

[Anonymous]

Again: who can tell me where the limits of offensiveness is in these situations?

I can...........Frank does.

That, I can live with

[Anonymous]

I can almost guarantee that there are a few here that would find Katman's censorship pretty offensive in and of itself, probably even more offensive than Katman finds the female body.

Katman made a simple public request. He does not intend to censor anyone. How can he do that, even if he wanted to?

I doubt if Katman finds the female body offensive at all. I can certainly understand his request, particularly the line about being at work while browsing this site, and the possibility that one of his co-workers may find something offensive.

I find Katman's request reasonable and rational. On the other hand, I find some responses to be just the opposite. Just my opinion...

Nick

[Dark Jedi]

I think Katman's request to simply stay out of his threads with such avatar's is fine. A bit over-sensative, but his choice.

oddly enough, his Kat project elicits far more lust in me than any avatar I have seen.....

[lhanscom]

We must remember this is a familly orentied forum!

Where in the forum is this stated? I assumed that this was a GS oreinted forum, and as all the GS riders I've met are adults, this site could be considered an adult site.

I agree that people should be civil to one another, and if that means not posting a picture, fine. Being civil also requires people to over look some things as well. Every person sees 'offensive' differently, and just because one deams it offensive, doesn't mean it needs to be banished. If that were the case religion and politics would never be discussed again, and while some would like that idea, it has been decided that it is acceptable. So get angry at what you see, and speak your mind as you have, but remember that nobody is forcing you to come to this particular place on the net, and like the movie you return for another, there are other forums. It would be a shame if it came to that, but we're not forcing your hand.

[zstanisi]

The avatars were artwork, not even real pics, this is like saying a Rubens painting is offensive material.

Of course it is offensive, just look at how the lighting is done in the picture. And not to mention colours, I always thought red cape is reserved for Little Red ... Ah, where will this world end up...

[Hoomgar]

oi! I am ashamed of many more than I have ever been of myself.

katman simply asked that those participating in his bike mod threads observe a few things for him. It was a request. He is our friend, what could possibly of been the problem?

Shame shame shame [-X [-X [-X

[Anonymous]

Amen!!

Shame on anyone who is unwilling to be understanding of, and comply with such a simple request from Katman.

How can you folks be so selfishly pigheaded that they can?t do such a little thing for kat? Especially since his post is such a valuable wealth of information and ideas. I know I have learned quite a bit from reading his posts. I would hate to see him stop posting just because a few folks can?t show a little common courtesy.

[MichaelHoward]

Of course it is offensive, just look at how the lighting is done in the picture. And not to mention colours, I always thought red cape is reserved for Little Red ... Ah, where will this world end up...

[Mr. Jiggles]

I can almost guarantee that there are a few here that would find Katman's censorship pretty offensive in and of itself, probably even more offensive than Katman finds the female body.

Katman made a simple public request. He does not intend to censor anyone. How can he do that, even if he wanted to?

I doubt if Katman finds the female body offensive at all. I can certainly understand his request, particularly the line about being at work while browsing this site, and the possibility that one of his co-workers may find something offensive.

Nick

Read Katman's second post in this thread more closely, Nick.

"What one calls art another calls child porn. Where is the line??? It changes like the jet stream every day. Not in my house. For my family the line is no nudity. It is clear and easy to understand and doesn't move. The kids know where they stand and where we stand.

Men look at nude woman because they enjoy it. It doesn't honor our wives, daughters sons, girlfriends or families so why do it? For selfish enjoyment. The only one this activity benefits, if you can say that, is the men. This activity is harmful to relationships not helpful or benigne. It sends a very wrong message to our daughters about what men like.
(...) scantally clad woman only make us men think of what is being covered....be HONEST...with yourself. If we(men) weren't so pre-ocupied with the female form it wouldn't be everywhere. "

It's clear to me that there are issues with images of the female body, not just totally nude but also scantilly clad, i.e. swimsuits, and the urges that they may invoke in some. So I ask again - where does it end? Will this policy prevent female members from posting their own picts as avatars out of concerns of evoking urges from 1 or 2 members?

AGain from Katman's second post in this thread:
"This didn't have to turn into a big song and dance....It was a simple request...."no nudity on my thread please". The only respnonse should have been OK. I didn't run out to the morality police I contacted the person privately and asked for a change without response."

My read into this is that he might (probably?) have had something to do with getting KGB's avatar changed. That IS censorship. And consider what it was that was removed - a low res drawing of a whip-wielding woman. How do TV censors make alter a nude scene for broadcast? by blurring the offending regions i.e. reduce its resolution. It certainly wasn't a nude phot and I wouldn't even consider it a nude image. That didn't stop someone who was overly sensitive to any titillating images to raise a ruckus and get the avatar yanked. Katman has already indicated that he regards all nude images of the female body, regardless of context, regardless of artistic value, as unacceptable. It seems that what every one here seems to be supporting is a pretty low threshold. It's a slippery slope that we're heading towards. I realize that this is a private site but I do take offense to assaults on freedom of (reasonable) expression and subsequent flippant policy-making.

To me, avatars are a way of expressing who we are, albeit often in very abstract ways. I thought that so far the site and especially it's members have done a pretty good job of not posting avatars that are outright offensive (sexually explicit, gore, violent). I also thought that it was implicit that there are people that are not going to like every avatar but that in the spirit of self-expression that (to a point) they would be tolerated. I agree with Frank's assessment that this community extends beyond GS-motorcycling proper, which is one of its appealing features for me (and I'm sure others). I fear that some of that flavor would be lost if we start applying puritanical scrutiny to what people post as avatars (or in print).

As for why this is in the Performance Section I am certain that it was an attempt to avoid a serious discussion by people on both sides of this serious issue.

[mdole]

We must remember this is a familly orentied forum!

Where in the forum is this stated? I assumed that this was a GS oreinted forum, and as all the GS riders I've met are adults, this site could be considered an adult site.

I'm offended that you called us all adults. For myself I'm just an extremely old teenager. And I'm never going to grow up, so there!

[lhanscom]

We must remember this is a familly orentied forum!

Where in the forum is this stated? I assumed that this was a GS oreinted forum, and as all the GS riders I've met are adults, this site could be considered an adult site.

I'm offended that you called us all adults. For myself I'm just an extremely old teenager. And I'm never going to grow up, so there!

Quite true, my mistake. I had used the term Adult loosely to mean over the age of 18. Most of the GSr's that I've met could not be mistaken for mature individuals :twisted:

[focus frenzy]

all I have to say on this subject is, I am sick and tired of right, left, whatever wing fringe religious/ moral Nazi's trying to tell me what I can see or do or say.
I will agree that a couple of the avatars were pushing it but they were with in the boundary's of the rules layed down by Frank.
last time I checked, when at work, we are suppose to WORK not surf the INTERNET, surf at your own risk, don't try to change the INTERNET to reduce your chances for getting in trouble for not working in the first place.

and despite putting man on the moon and little robots on mars, we still are animals and have animalistic instincts, nothing you do is ever going to change that.
you can lock your kids in the closet if you like, all you are doing is hurting them, you can not keep them under your wing forever, they will have to leave the nest eventually and they will be totally unprepared for what they will find.
a parents job is not to hide children from the world, but to guide them and teach them how the world is and the best way to deal with it.