For RichieW2001

Jim Bon Jovi · #41 03-02-2004, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichieW2001

you obviously read the times, telegraph or guardian such as myself, dawn, but i'm pretty darn sure the tabloids have far worse pictures than that in.

i'm sorry that you are offended by it, but it seems that you were the only one and i'm not going to change it on the basis of one complaint.

btw, be thankful it wasn't the Jesus Is A Homosexual pic

Richie, I have never seen a newspaper print a picture of 2 people in a sexual nature as you have displayed. Im sure you know this to be the case.

May God Bless you with wisdom and some respect.

Dawn

I'm pretty sure papers would run an advert with that picture in it without batting an eyelid.

As far as I'm concerned as long as there nothing on show (which there obviously isn't considering it's stick people) then there's not a problem.

people have sex. it;s natural and kids grow up fast these days.

So why havent we seen a picture like it before in the newspapers ? How can u say nothing is on show, it is obviously a siloulette of 2 people having sex doggy fashion, making a disrespectful remark towards the sexual act also. No where have I see this ever in the public press domain.

Dawn

I'm pretty sure if someone wanted to use that picture or something similar for an advert i don't think there'd be a problem with it.

By your reasoning, the smiley shooting another smiley shouldn't be allowed as it portrays extreme violence and murder....

I'm pretty open minded and liberal when it comes to sex, maybe you're not I don't really know but I think getting worked up over a cartoon is a bit extreme.

Dawn · #42 03-02-2004, 08:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by RichieW2001

you obviously read the times, telegraph or guardian such as myself, dawn, but i'm pretty darn sure the tabloids have far worse pictures than that in.

i'm sorry that you are offended by it, but it seems that you were the only one and i'm not going to change it on the basis of one complaint.

btw, be thankful it wasn't the Jesus Is A Homosexual pic

Richie, I have never seen a newspaper print a picture of 2 people in a sexual nature as you have displayed. Im sure you know this to be the case.

May God Bless you with wisdom and some respect.

Dawn

I'm pretty sure papers would run an advert with that picture in it without batting an eyelid.

As far as I'm concerned as long as there nothing on show (which there obviously isn't considering it's stick people) then there's not a problem.

people have sex. it;s natural and kids grow up fast these days.

So why havent we seen a picture like it before in the newspapers ? How can u say nothing is on show, it is obviously a siloulette of 2 people having sex doggy fashion, making a disrespectful remark towards the sexual act also. No where have I see this ever in the public press domain.

Dawn

I'm pretty sure if someone wanted to use that picture or something similar for an advert i don't think there'd be a problem with it.

By your reasoning, the smiley shooting another smiley shouldn't be allowed as it portrays extreme violence and murder....

I'm pretty open minded and liberal when it comes to sex, maybe you're not I don't really know but I think getting worked up over a cartoon is a bit extreme.

so if someone wanted to use this picture in the press they would have been able to ? It hasnt been used because it is a sexual act. If you knew about press and publicity you would know this and be aware it isnt allowed.

Comparing a sexual act sig to a smiley shooting another smiley is a little bit lame, a smiley isnt a person,

or maybe in your world it is

Dawn

Jim Bon Jovi · #43 03-02-2004, 08:37 PM

2 matchstick cartoons are not people.

I'm not denying it's a sexual act but as long as there's not 2 real people going at it then it's not a problem just the same as a smiley shooting another smiley is portraying the act of shooting some cunt in the head but i doubt that particularly offends anyone.

jade4jovi · #44 03-02-2004, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Comparing a sexual act sig to a smiley shooting another smiley is a little bit lame, a smiley isnt a person, or maybe in your world it is

Its no bloomin different!!! A stick person isnt a real person!!! Erm my brother shot himself and your smiley is showing somebody shooting, Am i offended?? Noo You are overreacting mate..

Keeper · #45 03-02-2004, 08:41 PM

I think Dawn has the right to complain about something she doesn't like. She asked politely and she's getting some pretty offensive answers. I think it's something between Dawn and Richie.

But as we are all in this - Dawn, are you offended by Daveyboy's avatar as well. It's quite similar to Richie's, only it has smileys on it. Not trying to prove anything, I'm just asking out of curiosity. So feel free NOT to answer

Dawn · #46 03-02-2004, 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jim Bon Jovi

2 matchstick cartoons are not people.

I'm not denying it's a sexual act but as long as there's not 2 real people going at it then it's not a problem just the same as a smiley shooting another smiley is portraying the act of shooting some **** in the head but i doubt that particularly offends anyone.

They are not stick people they are silouettes, you can tell they represent people, a male and female! It does matter in the public domain as it is representing two people involved in a sexual act. THis would NOT be allowed in any newspaper or public domain.

Dawn

Jim Bon Jovi · #47 03-02-2004, 08:44 PM

Having sex is as natural an act as they come.

If you're going to get offended by a daft cartoon (and you do seem to be the only one who is) then I worry about you

jade4jovi · #48 03-02-2004, 08:46 PM

dawn i would think i have more reason to be offended by the shooting smileys, How are you offended by stick figures in a sexual position? Sex is sex, It is natural i just dont understand ho it can offend somebody, If it wos realy people then yeah...

Dawn · #49 03-02-2004, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Keeper

I think Dawn has the right to complain about something she doesn't like. She asked politely and she's getting some pretty offensive answers. I think it's something between Dawn and Richie.

But as we are all in this - Dawn, are you offended by Daveyboy's avatar as well. It's quite similar to Richie's, only it has smileys on it. Not trying to prove anything, I'm just asking out of curiosity. So feel free NOT to answer

I havent seen Daveboys avatar. When I do I will let you know !

Dawn

Dawn · #50 03-02-2004, 08:53 PM

I see that 2 of you are mainly disagreeing with my comments ,thats fine, you have every right to disagree. We seem to be repeating ourselves. I cannot keep repeating myself over and over again. I have made it clear that this type of avatar is inappropiate due to its nature, it would not be allowed in the press and I dont think it should be allowed here.

It displays a disrespect towards the sexual act by its pictures and words, this is not conductive to presenting this board in the correct manner.

My above comments are basic reason why the press will not display such pictures also .

Dawn

For RichieW2001

NBJ - Everything Else