Since when does a request for discretion become censorship. Are we now reduced to the point where a mere request for voluntary restraint is suggesting is censorship? If this is true, is you advocating the folks censorship in making requests?
I think your judgment that what Tom suggested censorship was way off base. And no, I am not censoring you from accusing folks of suggesting censorship, by the way. Make and report your false assumptions all you like. I even suggest that you make them seem more real by assigning me (or others) to some group about whom you have some caricature view of and then accuse us of those views! GAWD! The prejudice! Now, the following is a request. It is only a request. It is not a demand. Failure to honor the request will not result in any form of discipline. The request may be ignored. "Can't we have a forum for discussion about photography where we don't bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask?" Now, the preceding was a request. It was only a request. It was not a demand. Again, failure to honor the request will not result in any form of discipline. Again, the request may be ignored. In fact you have my permission to ridicule me for stating it. Regards, Bob... From: "Cotty" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > On 13/7/04, Tom C, discombobulated, offered: > > >1. We are constantly bombarded by images of sexuality in our society. > >2. Morals have declined significantly in the past 100 or so years. What is > >OK today was not OK yesterday. Did it suddenly become OK or did standards > >change? > >3. Forty/Fifty years ago the commonly held view of the public display of > >nudity put it around the same level as child pornography is viewed today. > >4. The basic building block of civilization is the 'nuclear' family. > >Man/Woman/Child. When commonly accepted standards of morality breaks down, > >families breakdown, civilization breaks down. Hence the decay we see today > >in society as a whole. How does this relate to sexual images? Sexual > >images on the whole do not encourage loyalty to one's mate or family. Many, > >if not most, are designed to appeal to one's selfish prurient interests and > >desires. > >5. Can't we have a forum for disussion about photography where we don't > >bombard each other with sexual images? Is that to much to ask? > > I take your point Tom, but what you are suggesting is censorship. Fine if > you were made to sit in front of your monitor and had to view the picture > in question, but the fact is that you don't, especially when the > photographer issues guidance with a warning. It was your choice to view > the images. There are those on this list who disagree with what you have > written above (and I may not necessarily be one), and what you are > suggesting leaves no option for them to view. The way the original poster > proceeded was fair and correct IMO.
