Australian Politics Forum

Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl General Discussion >> Feedback >> Explicit Pictures http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1329702086 Message started by perceptions_now on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 11:41am

Title: Explicit Pictures
Post by perceptions_now on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 11:41am

Following some recent pictures, which have since been removed, I wish to confirm that pictures which are explicitly Sexual, sadistic, depict overtly cruel scenes or are used to convey swear words or a derogatory meaning, are not welcome on any boards at this site.

Whilst I understand that this necessarily calls for personal judgements by site administrators &/or Global Moderators, I trust you will agree that open slather is just not possible or desirable.

As Administrators &/or Global Moderators would find it extremely difficult to get to every post, your assistance in keeping such pictures off all boards at this site would be greatly appreciated, by way of sending a PM to one of the Administrators &/or Global Moderators!

I wish to thank you, in anticpation of your co-operation!

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 4:36pm

That's avery misleading heading PN. I clicked on it expecting to see naked pictures of some posters.

Annie, Francis, Jalane to name a few.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by dsmithy70 on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 7:01pm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vgBQsADl2uA

you poor man Adder ;)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Imperium on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 7:25pm

blackadder wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

That's avery misleading heading PN. I clicked on it expecting to see naked pictures of some posters.

Annie, Francis, Jalane to name a few.

king of all creeps and losers

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 7:34pm

barnaby joe wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 7:25pm:

blackadder wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

That's avery misleading heading PN. I clicked on it expecting to see naked pictures of some posters.

Annie, Francis, Jalane to name a few.

king of all creeps and losers

Yep Dubbo is the best place for you to live, you poor humourless pathetic dope.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 7:36pm

Quote

you poor man Adder

Coming from someone as I have said before that had Hitler as an avatar I don't give a shyte.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by perceptions_now on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 8:15pm

blackadder wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 4:36pm:

That's avery misleading heading PN. I clicked on it expecting to see naked pictures of some posters.

Annie, Francis, Jalane to name a few.

Then, you've missed out again hey, that's too bad?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by muso on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 2:39pm

I guess we'd better lose those zucchinis and cucumbers in the Vegetable of the week thread then.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by dsmithy70 on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 2:59pm

:o :o

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by cods on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 6:02am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 2:59pm:

:o :o

that was sent to me as well...but didnt include a recipe.... got this today as well..perc probably wont approve either.

he best story of the year doesn't give the proper praise and credit for this painful but understandable story as told by a loving wife.

The pastor asked if anyone in the congregation would like to express praise for answered prayers.

The wife stood and walked to the podium. She said, "I have a praise. Two months ago, my husband, Tom, had a terrible bicycle wreck and his scrotum was completely crushed.

The pain was excruciating and the doctors didn't know if they could help him." You could hear a muffled gasp from the men in the congregation as they imagine the pain that poor Tom must have experienced...

We prayed as the doctors performed a delicate operation, and it turned out they were able to piece together the crushed remnants of Tom's scrotum, and wrap wire around it to hold it in place."

Again, the men in the congregation cringed and squirmed uncomfortably as they imagined the horrible surgery performed on Tom.

"Now," she announced in a quivering voice, "thank the Lord, Tom is out of the hospital and the doctors say that with time, his scrotum may recover completely."

All the men sighed with unified relief. The pastor rose and tentatively asked if anyone else had something to say.

A man stood up and walked slowly to the podium.
He said, "I'm Tom Fritz." The entire congregation held its breath.

"I just want to tell my wife the word is sternum."

=======

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Jasignature on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 7:06am

Agree with Perceptions Now.
Take a metre ...but not a mile.
Especially when using the out-dated Imperial system is what makes the USA a 4th World Economy every time ...hence where all the Recessions and Depressions originate from.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by muso on Feb 22^nd, 2012 at 11:12am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 21^st, 2012 at 2:59pm:

img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-LW_lhcG1Rlo/TXYIZYmEX_I/AAAAAAAAJTk/9VV0uT-NtQk/s400/passion_fruit.jpg[/img]

:o :o

You could use some of those fruit in this recipe as a variant:

http://www.taste.com.au/recipes/9300/spotted+dick

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:49am

What do people think of the use of graphic images of war, execution etc as part of political debate?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by dsmithy70 on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:54am

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:49am:

What do people think of the use of graphic images of war, execution etc as part of political debate?

Because they are intrinsically linked.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:57am

You should use whole sentences.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by dsmithy70 on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 9:52am

Why?
Don't you think 5 words equals a sentence?

War - more often than not these days is fought over different political ideologies rather than territory or expansion of empire.

Execution - Other than criminality why does the state kill people? Political ideology.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 1:59pm

It would help me figure out what you are trying to say. I still have no idea what your views are on the use of graphic images in this context.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by dsmithy70 on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 2:45pm

Quote:

What do people think of the use of graphic images of war, execution etc as part of political debate?

LOL ;D ;D ;D ;D

I should re-read before hitting post.
In my mind fog this morning I read:
Why do people think of the use of graphic images of war, execution etc is part of political debate?

Which of course makes my answer fit.

My view on the actual post is I have no problem with them as long as they are in context with the discussion & thread much like my views on swearing.
Just posting graphic images as a way of trolling, looking to offend & upset other posters should see posts deleted warnings given & if ignored suspensions.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Annie Anthrax on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 5:53pm

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:49am:

What do people think of the use of graphic images of war, execution etc as part of political debate?

Depends on the context. For the most part, I think using photographs of someone's dead child or parent or other loved one in order to score debate points is disgusting.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 6:40pm

Is it OK to post a photo of a dead person if no-one loved them while they were alive? Do you think prohibiting such images sanitises war and makes it easier to promote war? People seem a lot less likely to support war if they are confronted with the reality of it.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Annie Anthrax on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 7:01pm

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 6:40pm:

Is it OK to post a photo of a dead person if no-one loved them while they were alive?

Yes, Freediver. Obviously that's what I think ::)

If someone blew your kid to pieces, would you want their remains plastered all over the internet?

Quote:

Do you think prohibiting such images sanitises war and makes it easier to promote war?

Where did I ask for them to be prohibited? I said for the most part, I find their use (and the responses to them) disgusting.

Quote:

People seem a lot less likely to support war if they are confronted with the reality of it

Do you? That's interesting. I've found the opposite - on this forum at least. Here graphic photographs of slaughtered children with their guts hanging out seem to provide an opportunity for humour.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 7:12pm

The two are not mutually exclusive.

Is your only interest in this issue the feelings of the surviving relatives of the photographed deceased?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Annie Anthrax on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 7:31pm

No.

I find it very difficult to look at those pictures and while I do agree everyone should be aware of what happens to innocent victims, I like to be prepared for viewing them. I saw a crap load of very explicit war pictures when I did some work for an anti-war organisation, so it's not that I haven't seen them before. But there's a time and a place - I don't want to scroll down a thread and see a dismembered child while my 5 year old son is sitting next to me or while I'm on the laptop at work or uni.

You yourself said you wanted Ozpolitic to be accessible and suitable for young people - I don't think exposure to something as emotional as suffering on that scale should be discovered in a forum like this.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:10pm

We discuss all sorts of 'mature' concepts here. I don't want to limit that. I think young people can handle that. Discussing war while glossing over the violence aspect is not really discussing it at all.

Would you be equally opposed to a graphic description of what goes on in war?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Annie Anthrax on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 7:53am

No.

And I'm not opposed to the use of graphic photographs in all circumstances. As I said before, it depends on the context. Ideally, there would be some kind of NSFW warning on the thread, but I appreciate that's almost impossible to do - unless of course the OP is posting the pics and can put it in the title.

Anyway, you asked a question in Feedback and I answered it. I'm not on some kind of crusade to put limitations on what other posters can do.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Jasignature on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 7:36pm

I don't think such pictures need to be tooo graphic otherwise this Forum could get in trouble for promoting such stuff as 'Snuff Vidios/Images' etc.

I'm sure we all get the message from a more respectable image.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by dsmithy70 on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 8:09pm

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:10pm:

No one comes to this site from a search for anything a young kid would type.
Censorship on the "Off Chance" is already rampant in the R/W.

Any pictures that are relvent to the discussion should be allowed.
War is Hell.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:09pm

Happily I wasn't lurking around where these images/since deleted . .. appeared.

I tend to agree with AA. If truly disturbing images are to be posted, in a relevant context. a fair thing would be the consideration of a warning beforehand.!

I won't speak for anyone else on this - just myself.

If the pictures are of butchered and mangled women and children... ...I can only assume one of the male supremacist types posted them. To score some point puerile point. no doubt.!!
SHAME ON YOU.

I don't need to see such things FROM YOU.. U R sole. whichever one of the suspects! >:( you are.
I say to the mods/ Perc. now. if you consider this was ( 'cos I didn't see it) beyond the pale.. ban for a period of time. This sort of useage for shock value is almost an assault.!

So IM GLAD I MISSED IT.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :)
Very glad.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by perceptions_now on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:21pm

Photos showing people having their head cut off by a large sword, with blood spurting in all directions, which is one I recently deleted, or something similar obnoxious in sexual overtones, will be deleted, if I see them!

Anyone wishing to disagree can do so, but that's what I will do, if I remain an Administrator!

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:23pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:10pm:

No one comes to this site from a search for anything a young kid would type.Censorship on the "Off Chance" is already rampant in the R/W.

Any pictures that are relvent to the discussion should be allowed.
War is Hell.

I think you missed AA's point.

Bu then again,, if you'd explain the context to me, and brief description of the 'acceptable' images I'd be better able to give YOUR point proper consideration.

:)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by dsmithy70 on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 10:16pm

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:23pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:10pm:

I think you missed AA's point.

Bu then again,, if you'd explain the context to me, and brief description of the 'acceptable' images I'd be better able to give YOUR point proper consideration.

:)

No I saw Annie's post and yes fair warning would be nice but as suggested impractical.

Those sort of images, women and children mutilated would be understandable in a discussion regarding the middle east be it on Israel/Terrorism.....well just about anything over there related to politics or religion.
Let's be honest, those very sort of images are used as propaganda by just about all sides except the yanks.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

Glad I missed it, cant see any thread that would require that in Politics or general/chat.
Saudi Arabian justice maybe or Japanese war crimes but haven't seen them.
Sexual/Rape images never have a seat at the table, the guilty should get an immediate holiday.

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:21pm:

if I remain an Administrator!

I don't know why that would even be up for discussion.
Your doing a great job :)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 10:40pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 10:16pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:23pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:10pm:

I think you missed AA's point.

Bu then again,, if you'd explain the context to me, and brief description of the 'acceptable' images I'd be better able to give YOUR point proper consideration.

:)

if I remain an Administrator!

I don't know why that would even be up for discussion.
Your doing a great job :)

Yep got my thumbs up,PN.

Those sort of images, women and children mutilated would be understandable in a discussion regarding the middle east be it on Israel/Terrorism.....well just about anything over there related to politics or religion.
Let's be honest, those very sort of images are used as propaganda by just about all sides except the yanks.

I think you could draw a wider bow than the Middle East/terrorism.!!

You could add much of eastern and nth wst Africa, for a start ..parts of India,.. Asia and
Sth Americ.

You could add - in smaller doses, Australia, NZ, pretty much everywhere, women and children are being abused mutilated and killed.
It's hard.... :( :( but it's undeniable. :'(

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 11:11pm

So what about the image Time magazine put on the front cover of a little naked asian girl with napalm burns? Should that earn people a ban?

Quote:

I don't think such pictures need to be tooo graphic otherwise this Forum could get in trouble for promoting such stuff as 'Snuff Vidios/Images' etc.

This forum does not host videos.

Quote:

If the pictures are of butchered and mangled women and children... ...I can only assume one of the male supremacist types posted them.

So no-one who posts these could be opposed to the practice?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:01am

YES - most definitely.!! For what possible valid reason could someone do that on this forum?.

I can see that picture now.
That picture made a real impact. And in a genuine effort to halt such practises.

But frankly FD, if you think this forum has the same relevance, importance or reach as that did on the front cover of Time, you're kidding yourself.

AND, I wouldn't expect any poster to use that photo, on this forum. Would you??
To 'say' what we all know? NOT NECESSARY. :( Perhaps you want to help highlight the distinctions with your question?) else what is your point?

But as I said, I didn't see the offensive post (s) , nor Know who posted them(it).

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:21am

oh and your second part FD -Quote:

If the pictures are of butchered and mangled women and children... ...I can only assume one of the male supremacist types posted them.

So no-one who posts these could be opposed to the practice?

On THIS forum?? no I don't believe they could be.!!

I might get angry enough at some posters to slag them off a bit... I'd never consider posting such shots... why??

That's the game they want to play ... this forum isn't going to change the world... it allows people to vent, in some circumstances, but not to be sadists.!. >:(

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:44am

No I saw Annie's post and yes fair warning would be nice but as suggested impractical.
Quote - DS-70

How so? People have avatars, supply links, ..there's nothing hard about simply saying for example. I'll be posting images in my next post to support my post. Be aware AO.
SVD . SADISM VIOLENCE DEATH, not THAT hard surely. Too lazy to afford respect to your fellow posters??

OK some deserve no respect.!! But chastisement shouldn't take the form of disturbing images.
I don't need some amateur FHead trying these crap games.
IF the images are relevant I'd suggest adding a link... NOT a display.! >:( :-X :-X

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Grey on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:59am

Where are the explicit pictures of Jalane?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Grey on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 1:10am

Seriously now, sometimes words aren't enough to convey what is being done in our name, or in the name of religion, or in the fight against.....

I think we all have a pretty good idea about what would exceed community standards. By which I mean what would profoundly offend an unacceptably high number of people. I don't think this is something you can or should have a rigid rule about./

Anybody that's offended can easily draw a mods attention to it and it's not hard to erase. I certaily don't think bans should be handed out for first offences. (Unless of course the images are foul enough to offend me ;) )

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 1:46am

Ha !!.

YOU WISH GREY!!! :) ;) try visualisation.!! :)

Did you see?? these offending pics?

And so yeah pics paint a thou words ! ::)

BUT - this is a discussion format isn't it? If your words fail you, you don't have what it takes to express yourself in language, you fail if you resort to pics.as the explanation. Pics mean different things to different people. Without sufficient background provided, verbally, pictures define nothing but what is perceived by the viewer. Which will obviously cover a wide range of basic attitudes and perceptions.
NOT a optimal expression of a person's own views in my thinking.... - IF THEY truly STRIVE to be understood.!! :-?
BUT like I said, nothing to stop adding a link and appropriate advice.
Seriously now....... :) 8-)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 1:51am

And Grey - just for you ;)
as an aid to your visualisation ....

take my current avatar, increase the height of the forehead , change the hair to a fine straight silver/gold, and add gray green eyes, and....... you are almost there. :) :P

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 9:42am

Quote:

But frankly FD, if you think this forum has the same relevance, importance or reach as that did on the front cover of Time, you're kidding yourself.

So what is your point? That less important media outlets should have different rules?

Quote:

AND, I wouldn't expect any poster to use that photo, on this forum. Would you??

It makes a compelling case against napalming villages.

Quote:

To 'say' what we all know? NOT NECESSARY.

But you would not know without the images. It would be far more abstract.

Quote:

On THIS forum?? no I don't believe they could be.!!

Why is everyone here different from our previous example?

Quote:

How so? People have avatars, supply links, ..there's nothing hard about simply saying for example. I'll be posting images in my next post to support my post. Be aware AO.

People often scroll up and down before reading the text. Or jump to the last post and scroll up.

Quote:

IF the images are relevant I'd suggest adding a link... NOT a display.!

I would not follow the links. If you habitually do that you end up with viruses and malware.

Quote:

I think we all have a pretty good idea about what would exceed community standards.

I don't think so. I think people have vastly different standards, and our local media is on the conservative end.

Quote:

BUT - this is a discussion format isn't it? If your words fail you, you don't have what it takes to express yourself in language, you fail if you resort to pics.as the explanation.

I don't think so at all. Even newspapers use pictures. This is not a text only forum. The discussion here includes pictures and videos. Could you convey what the Time magazine covered did just as quickly with words? Do you think it is some kind of improvement to this forum if communication takes 100 times as long due to arbitrary limitations?

Quote:

BUT - this is a discussion format isn't it? If your words fail you, you don't have what it takes to express yourself in language, you fail if you resort to pics.as the explanation.

So what's your point? Are you suggesting pictures are bad because they might be misinterpretted? Are they too powerful for our delicate sensibilities?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by life_goes_on on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 10:17am

Wartime atrocity and corpse pics are known as "war porn" for good reason (and despite what a quick google might indicate, it's been called war porn for at least 25 years that I know of).

I've looked through hundreds of wartime photo albums and it's not unusual to find a few blank pages or places where photos are missing - that's where the war porn was and the passage of years has resulted in guilt setting in and the photos being removed.

But the trade in wartime albums is rather healthy at the moment (mainly WW2 - with a few Korea and Vietnam thrown in). The albums with intact war porn getting a far higher price.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Annie Anthrax on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:08pm

Quote:

So what about the image Time magazine put on the front cover of a little naked asian girl with napalm burns? Should that earn people a ban?

You sure do play the drama queen well - for a robot, anyway.

Who is advocating banning?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 12:36pm

Just a warning. I wouldn't mess with Jalane.

Jalane.jpg (112 KB | 65 )

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 3:31pm

Good laugh!!!!! BA
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

Now that sort of pic SHOULD be banned.!!!!!!

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 8:58pm

enough of this levity... this is a serious topic.
:-?
I wouldn't like to see posted on this forum either, if you remember it, the photo taken in Africa during famine.. war...horror.. the starving wee child dying in the desert, alone, ..except for the photographer, and the waiting vultures.

I can still see that picture .....can you.??.

And, truly it was a one in a trillion picture of reality.

And the photographer left her to the vultures. :(

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by muso on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 1:14pm

PN - exercise your sense of decency. I'd trust you to make that judgement. That picture of the young girl burnt by napalm would not make it into today's media reports. The times and the culture have changed since the 70's. I would regard it as unacceptable if it wasn't a well known picture.

You might find this link useful. Obviously Phan Thi Kim Phuk herself has no problem with her picture being used for charitable purposes. She went on to found the Kim Foundation:

http://www.kimfoundation.com/

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by perceptions_now on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 10:36pm

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

PN - exercise your sense of decency. I'd trust you to make that judgement. That picture of the young girl burnt by napalm would not make it into today's media reports. The times and the culture have changed since the 70's. I would regard it as unacceptable if it wasn't a well known picture.

You might find this link useful. Obviously Phan Thi Kim Phuk herself has no problem with her picture being used for charitable purposes. She went on to found the Kim Foundation:

http://www.kimfoundation.com/

Whatever forum may be involved, there must be people who make "judgement calls" on a whole range of issues, including pictures, language and even general abuse between members of each forum.

The decisions made by "moderators", for want of a better term, will never be agreeable to all, there will always be some who agree & some who will disagree and that is simply an indicator of the human condition & the variations in peoples background.

That said, I have seen what happens on other forums, when limits are not applied, where so called freedom of speech is allowed to run rampant and the usual outcome is that the forum goes completely downhill, most members leave & eventually the forum closes.

Anyway, I've told that story, simply to say this, I'm sure I will make some mistakes (from time to time) and I'm sure I will upset some members (from time to time), but I will try to exercise a fair & balanced judgement of each set of circumstances.

But hopefully and of most importance on a forum such as this, which is above all Political, my judgement will be irrespective of any Political considerations, which shouldn't be too hard, as I have very little time for any of them!

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by dsmithy70 on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 8:05am

Emma wrote on Feb 25^th, 2012 at 8:58pm:

I've posted that pic several times.
It's an extremely good picture to illustrate that life is not fair & outside our lovely little island where people on 100K+ still expect government assistance serious & nasty sh!t goes down everyday.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Annie Anthrax on Feb 27^th, 2012 at 8:56am

Kevin Carter killed himself right after he won the Pulitzer for that photograph. Photojournalism covering war zones and famine would have to be an incredibly difficult career.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Frances on May 3^rd, 2012 at 2:35pm

Surely this is going a bit too far. I don't know if the image is photoshopped or not, mainly because I didn't want to look very closely at it:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335950759

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 3^rd, 2012 at 2:57pm

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

SO YOU AGREE THAT WESTERNERS EXPLICITLY KILLING INNOCENT PEOPLE IS OK WITH NO INVESTIGATION INTO THE RATIONALE AS TO WHY THOSE WESTERNERS WERE THEMSELVES ATTACKED IN THE FIRST PLACE????

wE ALL KNOW YOU WON'T DARE TO ANSWER THAT!

:o :o :o :o :o

GOODLUCK SLEEPING TONIGHT BTW!! HERE'S HOPING YOU CAN SUPPRESS THAT TRUTH ONE MORE NIGHT!!!

:-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ ;D

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 3^rd, 2012 at 2:59pm

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 20^th, 2012 at 11:41am:

PN CAN'T PLAY CHESS!!

LOOK OUT FOR THE RICOCHET!! :D :D ;)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:14pm

perceptions_now wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 10:36pm:

muso wrote on Feb 26^th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

hEY, pn, YOU GET CREDIT FOR ATLEAST POSTING YOUR OPINIONS BUT NONE FOR ADMITTING MISTAKES! Which means you're not really interacting .... Which means......!!

...the world turns brother and if you can't turn with it you fly off!

IT'S EVOLUTION BABY!!!

DON'T PANDER TO THE BLOODTHIRSTY SARAH PALIN CROWD COS THEY ARE WHACKO GUM CHEWING COWARDS WHO HIDE BEHIND THE 'UNLUCKY' CANNON FODDER WHEN PUSH COMES TO SHOVE...

THOSE PICTURES TELL A STORY AND YOU ARE SUPPRESSING IT AND SO PROMOTING THE VERY CULTURE WHICH BORE THEM!

THE INABILITY TO DISCUSS THE TRUTH AND INSTEAD PROMOTE MASS MINDLESS CONSUMERISM COMPLETE WITH LIKE LIKE LIKE LIKE IDLE DISTRACTION IS WHAT CAUSED 9-11: IT WAS ALWAYS AN UNSUSTAINABLE/UNSTABLE TRAJECTORY THAT NEEDED MARKET CORRECTION!

BY SUPPRESSING THE TRUTH YOU ARE BIDDING FOR WORLD WAR 3!

YOU ARE LIKE A CHESS PLAYER WHO REFUSES TO LEARN FROM HIS PREVIOUS LOST GAMES....

WAKE UP BUDDY..... THATS ALL YOU NEED TO DO!!

ANGER DEFEATS US ALL.... PRIDE MUST BE SWALLOWED AND THE AGONY OF THOSE PICTURES MUST BE REALISED TO BE LEARNT FROM!!!

DO YOU REALLY THINK I LIKE THOSE PICTURE!!!!

ARE WE ALL JUST SUPPOSED TO SIT AROUND OUR KEYBOARDS PERIODICALLY CLEANING THE SCREEN PRETENDING THE/OUR WORLD IS ROSES .. IS THAT WHAT YOU WANT??? :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[ :o
MAN UP, FELLA- WAR IS NOT FOR WIMPS AND METROS!!

MAYBE GET A GIRL TO DO THE MODDING OR SOMETHING MATE COS, LIKE IT CURRENTLY IS, YOU'RE SIMPLY RUNNING A SHAM FORUM!! :-X :o :o

** GET WITH THE PROGRAM, SHEEEEEESH! **

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:18pm

aMERICA WAS IN A CULTURE BUBBLE: and so to it's supporters!

---> AND WE STILL ARE, SO MAN UP pn!

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:41pm

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:49am:

What do people think of the use of graphic images of war, execution etc as part of political debate?

THE TRUTH IS ALL YOU'VE GOT! ;)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:48pm

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 7:36pm:

No we don't: that's the point!

That is why propaganda and advertising exist!!

** SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESH! **

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:51pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:10pm:

hear hear!!

And let's not forget congrats should go to freediver for upping the maturity stakes!!

:)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:53pm

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

So, how should the war against the war economy be fought then? ::) ::) ::) ;D

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Frances on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:54pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:14pm:

MAYBE GET A GIRL TO DO THE MODDING OR SOMETHING

No thanks. I was a moderator for a while on another now defunct forum, and it's a rather time consuming job. I don't really have the spare time to do it properly (moderating a forum that is).

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:56pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 10:16pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:23pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 8:09pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:10pm:

I think you missed AA's point.

Bu then again,, if you'd explain the context to me, and brief description of the 'acceptable' images I'd be better able to give YOUR point proper consideration.

:)

if I remain an Administrator!

I don't know why that would even be up for discussion.
Your doing a great job :)

I can give credit for PN bothering to explain his position on things!

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by PoliticalPuppet on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:57pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

So, how should the war against the war economy be fought then? ::) ::) ::) ;D

The economy is not powerful if we choose not to use it.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Deathridesahorse on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:06pm

Frances wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 2:35pm:

Surely this is going a bit too far. I don't know if the image is photoshopped or not, mainly because I didn't want to look very closely at it:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335950759

You gotta wake up princess!!

;) ;) ;) Stop profiting sexually from terror before you expect dignity!!! :-[ :-X :-X :-X :-X :-X

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Frances on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:15pm

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:06pm:

You gotta wake up princess!!

Stop profiting sexually from terror before you expect dignity!!!

And how exactly am I profiting sexually from terror?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by borntorule on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:39pm

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1335867472

the pictures on the last post here are offensive. Exactly what standards are there for photos if this is permissible. The same person also posted WTC photos of people jumping out. Surely, this is not acceptable particularly on a politics board.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by FriYAY on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:41pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:57pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

So, how should the war against the war economy be fought then? ::) ::) ::) ;D

The economy is not powerful if we choose not to use it.

How does one choose not to use the economy?

Do you not use the economy?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by PoliticalPuppet on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:42pm

FriYAY wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:41pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:57pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

So, how should the war against the war economy be fought then? ::) ::) ::) ;D

The economy is not powerful if we choose not to use it.

How does one choose not to use the economy?

Do you not use the economy?

keyword 'we'

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by borntorule on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:43pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:42pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:41pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:57pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

So, how should the war against the war economy be fought then? ::) ::) ::) ;D

The economy is not powerful if we choose not to use it.

How does one choose not to use the economy?

Do you not use the economy?

keyword 'we'

It's a bit like choosing not to breathe. You probably can do it if you dont mind dying.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by PoliticalPuppet on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:53pm

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:43pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:42pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:41pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:57pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

So, how should the war against the war economy be fought then? ::) ::) ::) ;D

The economy is not powerful if we choose not to use it.

How does one choose not to use the economy?

Do you not use the economy?

keyword 'we'

It's a bit like choosing not to breathe. You probably can do it if you dont mind dying.

What can I say to this apart from you are an idiot

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Gist on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:53pm

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:39pm:

*tsk* An ex-mod who doesn't understand how to go about getting the mods attention. No wonder you were such a failure. ::)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by PoliticalPuppet on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:55pm

Gist wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:53pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:39pm:

*tsk* An ex-mod who doesn't understand how to go about getting the mods attention. No wonder you were such a failure. ::)

Borntorule was a mod?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Gist on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:56pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Gist wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:53pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:39pm:

*tsk* An ex-mod who doesn't understand how to go about getting the mods attention. No wonder you were such a failure. ::)

Borntorule was a mod?

You probably know him better by one of his alternative names - longweekend, longloser, longwhine, ...

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by PoliticalPuppet on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:59pm

Gist wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:56pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Gist wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:53pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:39pm:

*tsk* An ex-mod who doesn't understand how to go about getting the mods attention. No wonder you were such a failure. ::)

Borntorule was a mod?

You probably know him better by one of his alternative names - longweekend, longloser, longwhine, ...

Why does the pussy need to keep using aliases?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by borntorule on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:08pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Gist wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:53pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:39pm:

*tsk* An ex-mod who doesn't understand how to go about getting the mods attention. No wonder you were such a failure. ::)

Borntorule was a mod?

No. It sounds like one of the rather lamentable and regular complaints by the simple-minded that it is not possible for two people to post and agree without one being a 'sock'. I recall a person on another site pretty much saying that all of the conservative posters were the same person. It gets a bit old after a while.

And apparently violent and explicit off-topic photos are of huge value on a political forum because...

(this is where you add some comments or even the rare original thought...)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by borntorule on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:09pm

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:53pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:43pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:42pm:

FriYAY wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 4:41pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:57pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 3:53pm:

Emma wrote on Feb 24^th, 2012 at 9:09pm:

So, how should the war against the war economy be fought then? ::) ::) ::) ;D

The economy is not powerful if we choose not to use it.

How does one choose not to use the economy?

Do you not use the economy?

keyword 'we'

It's a bit like choosing not to breathe. You probably can do it if you dont mind dying.

What can I say to this apart from you are an idiot

What makes you think that you can NOT use 'the economy'. How exactly do you think that works out in real life?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Gist on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:14pm

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:08pm:

When they post and agree AND say exactly the same things AND one appears just as the other disappears THEN the sock stench is unmistakable.

Got banned eh? Sucks to be you. ;D

Oh.. and I think Death is trying to make a point in his inimitable fashion. Something along the lines of the USA propping up their economy and their self-image by declaring war on other countries. I think that's a fair position to put in a political forum, although personally I might choose to raise it in a different way.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by borntorule on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:26pm

Gist wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:14pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:08pm:

if death wishes to raise a point he might do better to do a little more than vomit on the keyboard.

And pansi just said I had 14 'socks' so the credibility of your argument is diminishing rapidly.

Do you support those photos then?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Gist on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:46pm

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:26pm:

Gist wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:14pm:

borntorule wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 5:08pm:

A. I'm not responsible for what pansi says. ::)

B. I support Death's right to say what he wants, however he wants to say it. Preferably within the rules of this place.

C. This is the feedback forum. You should take chatter like this to the Chat forum.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by great one on May 3^rd, 2012 at 6:08pm

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:49am:

What do people think of the use of graphic images of war, execution etc as part of political debate?

I have no objection to it. If people wish to bring up certain topics I don't think they should complain when things get a little graphic. A picture tells a thousand words and all that. If your referring to Avraams objections, I find him much more offfensive than any photo you could put up.Graphic images are a reality in many parts of the world. We are lucky, we only have to see photos, some people have to live with these images embedded into their brains after seeing their loved ones blown apart.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by PoliticalPuppet on May 3^rd, 2012 at 6:25pm

Johnsmith wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 6:08pm:

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:49am:

What do people think of the use of graphic images of war, execution etc as part of political debate?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Avram Horowitz on May 3^rd, 2012 at 6:28pm

It is disgusting to use photos of dead children for entertainment.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by PoliticalPuppet on May 3^rd, 2012 at 7:05pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 6:28pm:

It is disgusting to use photos of dead children for entertainment.

Much better as a foreign policy
You do realize those pictures are of victims of the idf

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by mozzaok on May 3^rd, 2012 at 8:18pm

I do not agree with people using images of dead and mutilated bodies, to support their personal crusades.
It too easily degenerates into a propaganda war of who can provide the more horrific imagery.

I do understand how in some, rare, circumstances, an image may add to a discussion, but not the images used merely for shock value, meant to imply that one side of a conflict are monsters, which is usually the case when such images have been posted on this forum.

If there are extreme graphic images, which members believe they need to share, then they should provide a link to them, with an appropriate warning about the graphic nature of the content.

I would not want my kids to walk in and see those images on my screen, I did not wish to see them myself, and the foolish belief of the person that posted them which was that they would inspire people to think differently about the palestinian conflict, was incredibly naive, at best.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Avram Horowitz on May 3^rd, 2012 at 8:22pm

I want to see the very unhappy photographs removed.

It is disgrace to use the pictures as entertainment.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Dnarever on May 3^rd, 2012 at 8:23pm

freediver wrote on Feb 23^rd, 2012 at 8:49am:

What do people think of the use of graphic images of war, execution etc as part of political debate?

Wrong side of the line.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:35pm

Yes and thank you Mozzaok for your comment.

I agree. AND I fail to see the position of the person who posted that last photo, of a man who'd obviously been a victim of explosives, losing lower legs , life etc, ....what is that ?

Israel/Palestine War? Cos it is... a filthy guerilla war.

But thats by the bye..
Is an awful picture with no apparent reason for display than to 'shock'.... but lets face it... in today's world,, WHO is Right?

No body .....
No thanks
:(

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 3^rd, 2012 at 10:38pm

oooh that was on that other thread.... no need to view it.
Sorry.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Soren on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:07am

Is this stats or porn?

Read the article here:
http://www.genxjourney.com/2010/11/05/stop-the-presses-australian-men-have-4th-biggest-penises-in-the-world/

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:21am

neither-

it's just funny.!! What happened to Germany?

heehee

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Frances on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:40am

Interesting - Italy is in second place....

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 4^th, 2012 at 1:03am

Hmmm -- but it's not believable really --- given the source.

Dear Soren ..... a proud, secretly Danish, Australian, !! :)
Do you make that grade Soren? MMMMhhh??? :-*

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by cods on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:52am

soren why on earth are you sourcing pictures and stats like this??????????????

wouldnt size of the brain make more sense..

I wonder who does the measuring??? any stats on that soren?? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;) ;) ;) ;) ;)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Frances on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:58am

cods wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:52am:

wouldnt size of the brain make more sense..

With some men it's the same thing.....

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:21am

Soren is that what you mean when you say you like Danish?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by muso on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:42am

The Danish are famous for their meat and charcuterie.

What's this Manhunt.net ?

I know the Danes are very open about sex, but this is ridiculous.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by great one on May 4^th, 2012 at 10:15am

mozzaok wrote on May 3^rd, 2012 at 8:18pm:

Disagree, it doesn't have to be a propaganda war .... picture can bring the discussion to another level ... In an age where many people spend all day blowing people up, shooting each other and ripping people to shreds while playing their computer games, we are constantly bombarded on TV, Cinema and radio of shootings, killings, wars etc many of today's population don't associate the words with the reality. Pictures have a habit of shoving that reality right back into your face. Like it or not, you cannot dispute the results of these action when they are staring at you in colour. Sure, some people won't like them, but couldn't that be in some way considered proof of their effectiveness?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4^th, 2012 at 10:53am

I found that to be utterly appalling and disgraceful.

It added nothing whatsoever to anything other than to be controversial for the sake of being controversial.

That it came from a guy with little values who has celebrated 9/11 victims' deaths, made anti-semitic remarks on here and stated the holocaust was a good thing - is hardly surprising.

The only surprise I have is that he has been allowed to post on here again after being banned.

People like that don't change, they should simply be ignored or prevented from coming on.

They add nothing.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:39am

Quote:

and stated the holocaust was a good thing

Can you give me a quote please?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by PoliticalPuppet on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:45am

Why should we listen to people like you Andrei who support terrorists who have been responsible for the deaths of millions of innocent people?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:53am

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

Quote:

and stated the holocaust was a good thing

Can you give me a quote please?

I can.
I will dig it out, but he is on record, to my disgust as stating that Jews deserved the holocaust because of the actions of Israel and it therefore wasnt a bad thing.

At the time I stated I would not reply to him again, which I should have stuck with since.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by PoliticalPuppet on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:55am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

Quote:

and stated the holocaust was a good thing

Can you give me a quote please?

Yes thats about the 100th time you have taken my words out of context.

Let me explain it again.

I was called anti-Semitic for not supporting Israels terrorism, which would mean that all people of Semitic background support it. If this was so then they would have deserved it, but its not. It was pointing out how stupid it was to call me anti Semitic for not supporting them.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by great one on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:57am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 10:53am:

On a different thread, you were heralding the governments decision to spend billions on buying submarines which serve no purpose other than to be used as war machines ... those pictures show you what war machines do, albeit on a limited scale ... I say it brings reality to the argument. Don't like the result, don't start the action

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:58am

Am I incorrect in stating that you stated that it was a shame 'that they didn't get more people' in 9/11?

Am I incorrect in stating that you said Jews deserved the holocaust?

I am happy to find your comments or you can retract them now.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:59am

Johnsmith wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:57am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 10:53am:

Did I not state that it should be part of a defence budget?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by PoliticalPuppet on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:00pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:58am:

People like you who support US terrorism do deserve a taste of your own medicine.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:08pm

Do you still think 9/11 was "benefitial" and "a shame they didn't get more"?

Or do you accept these comments are appalling and you retract them?

This is your opportunity to apologise.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:09pm

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

Quote:

and stated the holocaust was a good thing

Can you give me a quote please?

here's the views on 9/11 - which brought the ire of pretty much everyone decent.

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1333768783/14

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Annie Anthrax on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:22pm

Soren wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:07am:

Is this stats or porn?

Read the article here:
http://www.genxjourney.com/2010/11/05/stop-the-presses-australian-men-have-4th-biggest-penises-in-the-world/

You Danish people finally have something to thank African immigration for, Jane.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:32pm

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 11:39am:

Quote:

and stated the holocaust was a good thing

Can you give me a quote please?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1330876302/41

PoliticalPuppet Offline
Gold Member
Great Sumatran Fault

Posts: 2775

If being jewish means you support Israel and its slaughter of innocent people then bugger the jews I hope they get the hollocaust again and they deserved it lasttime

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Frances on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:54pm

Soren wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:07am:

Is this stats or porn?

I thought that they looked more like some varieties of Asian mushrooms than penises. Mind you, I'm not especially knowledgable when it comes to penises, as my experience with them has been somewhat limited....

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 4^th, 2012 at 1:21pm

Frances wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:54pm:

Soren wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:07am:

Is this stats or porn?

Nonsense - you've seen one before.
You're worse than JuLiar.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by mantra on May 4^th, 2012 at 2:05pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Do you still think 9/11 was "benefitial" and "a shame they didn't get more"?

Or do you accept these comments are appalling and you retract them?

This is your opportunity to apologise.

People are entitled to their views. So what if some members hate Jews - there is just as much hate thrown around here in regard to Muslims. I see few people jumping in to defend the disgusting and negative comments directed at them.

All those whinging about unpleasant pictures and anti-semitic comments come across as quite hypocritical. Obviously your opinions aren't censored, yet you demand that others are.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4^th, 2012 at 2:28pm

mantra wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Do you still think 9/11 was "benefitial" and "a shame they didn't get more"?

Or do you accept these comments are appalling and you retract them?

This is your opportunity to apologise.

So what????

If you need me to point out what is wrong with that, then there is little hope for you as a reasonable contributer.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Frances on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:29pm

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 1:21pm:

Nonsense - you've seen one before.

Of course I've seen one before (and done a bit more than just look at it, although I have no intention of discussing that here). I am married, after all.

I have seen a few others, but not closely enough to make any comparisons.....

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Gist on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:39pm

Whoever put that graph together was having themselves on.

I mean... why is Australia in 4th place? We're a nation of immigrants. We get people from every part of the world. Maybe not in equal proportions but still... I'd expect Australia to be close to the average across nations. Somewhere around the middle of the list.

Not up near the top!

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:47pm

Of course I've seen one before (and done a bit more than just look at it, although I have no intention of discussing that here).

Aw come on Francis. You are amongst friends here. ;)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Frances on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:59pm

The name is Frances and not Francis. In my case, one letter makes a big difference. And sorry, but I have no intention of discussing my sex life on this forum....

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Uncle Meat on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:01pm

Frances wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

The name is Frances and not Francis. In my case, one letter makes a big difference. And sorry, but I have no intention of discussing my sex life on this forum....

Which forum then?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:10pm

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:01pm:

Frances wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

The name is Frances and not Francis. In my case, one letter makes a big difference. And sorry, but I have no intention of discussing my sex life on this forum....

Which forum then?

Maybe this one....http://www.redhotpie.com.au/

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:25pm

Frances wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

The name is Frances and not Francis. In my case, one letter makes a big difference. And sorry, but I have no intention of discussing my sex life on this forum....

Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances, Frances,

Got it.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Uncle Meat on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:41pm

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Andrei.Hicks on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:45pm

FRANCES RIPS FLORIDA - UPGRADED TO CAT 4

DON'T bugger WITH THE FRANCES

Frances.jpg (49 KB | 59 )

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:50pm

What about fake pictures?

see:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1336011092/19#19

A supposed pic of nail & me which is fake.
Why shouldn't blackadder be banned?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:08pm

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

What about fake pictures?

see:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1336011092/19#19

A supposed pic of nail & me which is fake.
Why shouldn't blackadder be banned?

Don't mess with me batpoo.

Blackadder_.jpg (89 KB | 56 )

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 4^th, 2012 at 5:20pm

Blackadder ,
you need to join the army & have someone like
gunnery Sergeant Hartman to be on your case.
He would cure you.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUc62jD-G0o

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:21pm

ooohhh ooo
Bobby Batbrain!! and Blackars!!!

How do you manage It?. Such tripe, I mean. And . such irrelevant tripe at that.!!

:)
:) :D

Guess ure moronic youthszzzzzzz.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:30pm

Emma wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:21pm:

ooohhh ooo
Bobby Batbrain!! and Blackars!!!

How do you manage It?. Such tripe, I mean. And . such irrelevant tripe at that.!!

:)
:) :D

Guess ure moronic youthszzzzzzz.

Geez, I thought you loved me.

I am coming to Brisbane week after next. Was going to call in and say hello on the drive from Brisbane to the Gold Coast.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:32pm

AND YEAH!!

What ABOUT fake pictures??.

Some historic images are indeed burned into the psyche of many OLDER people.....
But young folk see so much stuff that is illusion, and delusional, that they don't have the capacity, IMO, to discriminate between fact and fiction........ it's all the same.

OR
they have inured themselves against those very violent and war photos,, having seen enough already.!!!

Pictures no longer equal a thousand words...
Pictures equal a thousand questions.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:36pm

blackadder wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:30pm:

Emma wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:21pm:

ooohhh ooo
Bobby Batbrain!! and Blackars!!!

How do you manage It?. Such tripe, I mean. And . such irrelevant tripe at that.!!

:)
:) :D

Guess ure moronic youthszzzzzzz.

Geez, I thought you loved me.

I am coming to Brisbane week after next. Was going to call in and say hello on the drive from Brisbane to the Gold Coast.

OHHH DARRLEENG !!! :-* :-* :-*
Please don't mees out.!!
I vould lov to zee u>!! :-* :-*
:)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:37pm

People today are desensitised to violence, but within limits, which is why those graphic war photos still have an impact. I challenge you to find anything like them from Hollywood. It would put people off their popcorn.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by mantra on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:41pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 2:28pm:

mantra wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Do you still think 9/11 was "benefitial" and "a shame they didn't get more"?

Or do you accept these comments are appalling and you retract them?

This is your opportunity to apologise.

So what????

If you need me to point out what is wrong with that, then there is little hope for you as a reasonable contributer.

And who are you to call yourself judge? Many of your posts are highly offensive because of the demeaning, racist and condescending attitude you direct at people generally.

We all think differently and this needs to be accepted whether you like it or not. You can't shut people up just because you or someone else with a similar narrow attitude doesn't approve.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:47pm

Oh I'm not talking Hollywood FD. Your challenge is misguided.

I'm talking about NEWS.

I have seen equally awful things on various News providers.

In fact IMO our young 'escape' into fantasy game-playing, and 'now' connections with their friends (via mobile, texting, etc,) in an effort to keep at bay the real horror of the world we live in. :(

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:48pm

Emma wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:21pm:

ooohhh ooo
Bobby Batbrain!! and Blackars!!!

How do you manage It?. Such tripe, I mean. And . such irrelevant tripe at that.!!

:)
:) :D

Guess ure moronic youthszzzzzzz.

Yes Jalane but how would you handle gunnery Sergeant Hartman?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:50pm

And I do agree with you Mantra.
I often do it seems. :)

Hick is a... right reactionary realist.!! ::)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by freediver on May 4^th, 2012 at 8:02pm

Quote:

I'm talking about NEWS.

I have seen equally awful things on various News providers

I haven't. It would put people off their dinner.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Frances on May 4^th, 2012 at 8:09pm

blackadder wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:10pm:

Uncle Meat wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:01pm:

Frances wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 3:59pm:

The name is Frances and not Francis. In my case, one letter makes a big difference. And sorry, but I have no intention of discussing my sex life on this forum....

Which forum then?

Maybe this one....http://www.redhotpie.com.au/

I thought I'd wait until I got home, rather than click on that link at work and, no, I've never even seen that site before, let alone posted anything there. I don't need something like that anyway.....

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by great one on May 4^th, 2012 at 8:37pm

freediver wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:37pm:

Saving Private Ryan was pretty graphic ...

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 4^th, 2012 at 8:40pm

News isn't only on at dinnertime, BUT I have seen things on the six o'clock News (whatever) I would rather have not. Perhaps you don't watch much TV news? I find SBS the best, of Oz stations.

Did you see the footage of the footballer breaking his leg recently??
It wasn't shown very much, more referred to, later on.

That was on free-to-air News.
It wasn't nice to see, ..and it wasn't necessary to be seen, but it was shown nonetheless.

Another example of an explicit picture, IMO.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 4^th, 2012 at 8:43pm

Batbrain... I didn't view it. I have seen the movie however, ...and don't intend to view your posted clip.

But ,............ I wouldn't put myself in that position to begin with. ::)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by Avram Horowitz on May 4^th, 2012 at 8:56pm

mantra wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 2:28pm:

mantra wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Do you still think 9/11 was "benefitial" and "a shame they didn't get more"?

Or do you accept these comments are appalling and you retract them?

This is your opportunity to apologise.

So what????

If you need me to point out what is wrong with that, then there is little hope for you as a reasonable contributer.

Disgrace comments from mantra.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by great one on May 4^th, 2012 at 8:59pm

Avram Horowitz wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 8:56pm:

mantra wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 7:41pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 2:28pm:

mantra wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 2:05pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Do you still think 9/11 was "benefitial" and "a shame they didn't get more"?

Or do you accept these comments are appalling and you retract them?

This is your opportunity to apologise.

So what????

If you need me to point out what is wrong with that, then there is little hope for you as a reasonable contributer.

Disgrace comments from mantra.

Disgraceful person Avramm

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by jalane on May 4^th, 2012 at 9:24pm

I don't agree with you great one.

You are being unreasonable, in that you feel free to say what you please, and yet Av can't be also allowed to say what he believes? ?

OK Av has said the same about other posters, I see that,
and if one considers equality to mean ...'everyone is treated the same' then perhaps what you say has some basis.

But I don't view equality as 'one size MUST fit all'. We all have our own views, derived from our own life experience, and our own wounds. To insist that only one view prevails is obviously up for argument. :)

And that's where equality falls into the 'Too Hard' basket.

Much easier to have everyone on the same 'plane'.
Not going to happen.

And.... I guess that applies to you too Av,.... and to me... and to all of us.
We either learn to live together, or face a future of endless strife and conflict.
What do you think will happen?? Hmm?
We'll all live happily ever after if only this... or that..... Not going to happen.

Our current political dichotomy is a perfect example.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:48am

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

What about fake pictures?

see:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1336011092/19#19

A supposed pic of nail & me which is fake.
Why shouldn't blackadder be banned?

FD,
When will I receive justice for the wrongs committed against me?
How can blackadder get away with it?

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by muso on May 6^th, 2012 at 10:54am

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 9:48am:

Bobby. wrote on May 4^th, 2012 at 4:50pm:

What about fake pictures?

see:
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1336011092/19#19

A supposed pic of nail & me which is fake.
Why shouldn't blackadder be banned?

FD,
When will I receive justice for the wrongs committed against me?
How can blackadder get away with it?

It's on me, mate. (warning nudity)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:09am

Very funny Freediver.

OK - I'll get my blackadder fake pics ready. ;)

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:26am

What a nice pic:

Blackadder and his boyfriend - what a happy couple.

Blackadder___his_boyfriend_.jpg (195 KB | 41 )

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by muso on May 6^th, 2012 at 1:05pm

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:09am:

Very funny Freediver.

OK - I'll get my blackadder fake pics ready. ;)

It wasn't from FD.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 6^th, 2012 at 1:27pm

muso wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 1:05pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:09am:

Very funny Freediver.

OK - I'll get my blackadder fake pics ready. ;)

It wasn't from FD.

OK - sorry.
Very funny Muso,

OK - I'll get my blackadder fake pics ready

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on May 6^th, 2012 at 5:03pm

Batpoo B4 Jenny Craig

Batpoo_B4_Jenny_Craig_.jpg (6 KB | 45 )

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by life_goes_on on May 6^th, 2012 at 5:14pm

I haven't read back, so I'll assume this is some kind of competition.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on May 6^th, 2012 at 5:19pm

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

What a nice pic:

Blackadder and his boyfriend - what a happy couple.

Lacking originality AGAIN I see batpoo.

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by bobbythebat1 on May 7^th, 2012 at 12:52am

blackadder wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

What a nice pic:

Blackadder and his boyfriend - what a happy couple.

Lacking originality AGAIN I see batpoo.

It was your pic black dunce.

Blackadder_and_his_boyfriend_.jpg (195 KB | 43 )

Title: Re: Explicit Pictures
Post by blackadder on May 7^th, 2012 at 9:21am

Bobby. wrote on May 7^th, 2012 at 12:52am:

blackadder wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 5:19pm:

Bobby. wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 11:26am:

What a nice pic:

Blackadder and his boyfriend - what a happy couple.

Lacking originality AGAIN I see batpoo.

It was your pic black dunce.

That's what I mean dopey.