> Tom C wrote: > Many of us, and let me presume all of us, filter out all > kinds of things we don't want to see or hear. My satellite > TV controller has plenty of filters set up. > > This constant filtering from all sources becomes exhausting > and tiresome. I personally would prefer that the PDML, and > by extension the PUG, does not become a forum for the display > of what some would consider sexually explicit images, even > if there's a warning/disclaimor. > > It's as simple as that. I know that's probably too much to > ask and that somone will suggest this a public forum that > reflects the disparate views of > it's constituents. Which is true. I still would wish that > nudity, whether > considered art by some or pornography by others, does not > become a topic of this list.
There is certainly a lot on the internet that *I* don't want to see, much less my children. Having said that, as a subscriber of individual e-mails, I am often warned twice that a PAW might not be for me; firstly by any OT header in the subject line and secondly by having to click on a hyperlink to see the image concerned. The PUG has it's own rules of what is permissible to submit and what isn't. I certainly don't like the feeling that certain images may upset people - particularly here, but the images we see often reflect parts of human life some would best like forgotten - like iWitness. But it happens. By submitting some shots as PAWs, an element of choice is given with the captions before the link. I retain responsibility over use of the computer my end, but no doubt no matter how well I filter the outside world, something unpleasant will come in, often without any warning being given. PDML has always given me a choice. Malcolm
