Comments on: NSFW inline image.

NSFW inline image.

mr_crash_davis — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:39:35 -0800

NSFW inline image. Come on, The Jesse. What's next, diarrhetic elephants?

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 21:58:39 -0800

One good way to force Matt to turn off [img] tags is to abuse it. Although an appropriate pic once in a while is a pleasant treat, I gotta go with mr_c_d here - nix on the nekkidness, even if it is tasteful, please.

Not to mention the whole boyzone argument, which unfortunately is pretty much a lost cause anymore.

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:00:16 -0800

I've noticed quite a few images recently. It may finally be time to do away with them altogether.

Hmm...or what stavros said.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:01:23 -0800

(Not to say that I don't enjoy naked pictures in and of themselves, just not here, you know? George Costanza worlds colliding and all that.

"You got your nudity in my Metafilter! No, you got your Metafilter in my nudity!")

By: mischief

mischief — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:01:31 -0800

Oh, and what's with XQ's BS response to mick? The dolphins ARE only trained to point out the mines, not detonate them.

By: jonson

jonson — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:15:19 -0800

XQ seems overly sensitive, perhaps because a) it was his post, and b) he has a tendency to be involved in the war posts. I agree, a bit of an over-reaction.

By: Vidiot

Vidiot — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 22:51:37 -0800

I see the pic in question has been deleted. Thanks, Matt. (By the way, that was the second wildly off-topic image post from TJH in as many days; yesterday's was here.)

By: mischief

mischief — Thu, 27 Mar 2003 23:13:58 -0800

Now that mick's comment is first, it really punctuates just how bizarre XQ's writeup is.

By: backOfYourMind

backOfYourMind — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:23:09 -0800

Well, now I've got to know - what the hell was in that picture?

By: Slithy_Tove

Slithy_Tove — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:54:43 -0800

~~Eleanor Roosevelt in flagrante delicto with J. Edgar Hoover.~~

Naked female PETA person holding a cat.

By: shepd

shepd — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 03:55:46 -0800

(naked) Sexy PETA chick holding a bunny rabbit (not a cat). Slogan said something like "Fur is for hugging" or some hippie thing like that.

She was showing off 65% buttocks and 15% boobies, if you care to know. :)

By: hama7

hama7 — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 04:29:05 -0800

I guess this kind of defeats the purpose of the deletion, but here is the source of the image of Charlotte Ross.

PETA pretension plus public posterior proliferation.

By: twine42

twine42 — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 05:02:38 -0800

regardless of whether it should have been places inline, can I say that IMHO, that's not NSFW?

If you could put it on a billboard, how can it be NSFW?

Mind, I work in porn, so my opinions may be altered. My current backdrop would have most sysadmins going themonuclear...

By: konolia

konolia — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:39:55 -0800

yep, boyzone.

Is there a chance some of you might actually grow up?
(don't bother answering. That was rhetorical.)

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 06:45:46 -0800

I took offense that Mick condescendingly called it "another pointless war post." For god sakes, man. MONKEYS AND LAND MINES.

Can we save the partisan bickering call-outs for the posts linking to blatantly right-wing/left-wing sites claiming as fact that impeachable/cannonzation-worthy exploits of Bush that I was trying to NOT make, please?

By: languagehat

languagehat — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:31:20 -0800

XQ: Yeah, but when somebody corrects your facts, "oops -- thanks!" is a much better response than "what crawled up your ass?" A word to the wise.

By: jonson

jonson — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:32:53 -0800

XQ - Again, agreed, this was different from the average Mefi warfilter post. Still, your reaction was pretty strong, when it could have just been a reasoned "hey, this is different from the pointless war posts in the following ways:" etc.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:43:22 -0800

Since the PETA image is, in a way, the basis of this thread, I don't consider it off topic to say: These "I'd rather ___ than wear fur" ads make sense only as porn, not as consciousness-raisers. "go naked" in that phrase at least made a little sense. But "show my buns" (this one) is an incredibly lame attempt at a pun to justify the porn. Coming up next: "I'd rather spread my beaver than wear fur!"

The worst part is, considering they make sense only as porn, they're not even very good as porn.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 07:45:17 -0800

It was an attempt at a humorous post. Other posters understood and made humorous comments. Mick saw a slight mistake and phrased it as if I was crafting a partisan war post, calling it "pointless." I stand by my suggestion that something crawled up his ass. If this still bothers you, I have already directed you to stories about dolphins and monkeys and high explosives; as such I know not what else to provide you with for entertainment.

By: Shane

Shane — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:02:28 -0800

I stand by my suggestion that something crawled up his ass.

The Bungey-Bungey, a small mammal most closely resembling a gerbil, rare and indiginous only to remote parts of the NSW Australian outback, carries out a strange (yet fascinating!) ritual when it senses its imminent demise: In a process similar to feral dogs and cats (and some other woodland mammals) burrowing into a hole or beneath a log, the Bungey-Bungey seeks out a larger creature, preferably a human; it then skittles madly up the hind leg of this creature (it has been said the Bungey-Bungey resembles a salmon swimming up stream when it clambers up inside a human's pantleg and climbs madly due North) until it reaches the anus of the host, in which it inserts itself and promptly dies.

Extreme irritability and combative disposition (as well as constipation, an inflamed colon, and a stiff and somewhat bow-legged gait when walking) have been noted in the host after insertion of the Bungey-Bungey.

In the future this fascinating and wondrous little bugger will be the subject of its own Special Edition of Marlin Perkin's Wild Kingdom.

By: Mick

Mick — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:23:00 -0800

No, no, XQUZYPHYR is right, something crawled up my ass, warFilter.

I can't wait to crap it out.

By: Skot

Skot — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:43:06 -0800

I stand by my suggestion that something crawled up his ass . . . I know not what else to provide you with for entertainment.

You're adorable. Don't ever change, especially the part of you that goes ballistic whenever it is suggested that perhaps you're not very funny.

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:45:10 -0800

Baby Jesus wants you to stop the small text!

[/protest]

By: th3ph17

th3ph17 — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 08:58:50 -0800

i'd rather wait for a thousand NSFW images to load in a thread, on a 14.4 modem, than have one PETA ad appear on this high-speed connection.

By: XQUZYPHYR

XQUZYPHYR — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:01:48 -0800

Ummm..... I love you too, Skot?

Mick, I guess my point was that of all the threads you could have chosen to try and derail by attacking as a "pointless war post," why did you pick one that I was trying to avoid being partisan about?

I'll admit I have a visible political leaning, but this was an article about potentially-exploding monkeys, not "Bush did this" or "Bush did that." Now, as Skot has graciously pointed out you may not find this funny, but does its mere relationship to Iraq mean you despise it as "IraqFilter?"

By: Shane

Shane — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:15:25 -0800

Baby Jesus wants you to stop the small text!
Are you kidding? Post that kind of goofy self-indulgent off-topic nonsense in full-size font? Some people can, but I cannot do it.

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:42:07 -0800

Here's a crazy idea: you could just not post it.

By: Shane

Shane — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 09:57:31 -0800

Here's a crazy idea: you could just not post it.

Ask not for whom the bell tolls, oh Supreme Wit and Intellect Kafka...

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 10:56:58 -0800

Listen. I don't want to get in a pettiness contest with you, Shane. You're obviously better at it than me. It took me a while to learn this simple thing: not everything that pops into my head needs to be a comment on MetaFilter. I'm just hoping you'll learn that lesson too.

By: Shane

Shane — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:05:42 -0800

Listen. I don't want to get in a pettiness contest with you, Shane. You're obviously better at it than me.

No, with that depressingly sad and inflammatory remark of "You're obviously better at it than me," you proved beyond a doubt that you've got me beat. If you would have stopped before that remark we'd be done now, eh? I don't think you've learned the "not everything that pops into my head" lesson yet either, which is why I have to laugh at you of all people sermonizing, but that's just my opinion.

Let's quit while we're ahead. I see no reason to carry this discussion any further in MeTa (or anywhere else).

Have a nice day.

By: anapestic

anapestic — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:17:52 -0800

Let's quit while we're ahead.

You posted humorlessly about an imaginary rodent that crawls up people's asses. Just what is it that you're ahead of?

By: Shane

Shane — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 11:41:05 -0800

Just what is it that you're ahead of?

I was hoping we could stay ahead of another MeTa thread going to hell with namecalling and bad feelings for all, but it's probably too late for that. Escalation, you know. I'll take some of the blame for that. It's a nice day out, I'm going to head out in the sun ASAP. Might not be a bad idea.

By: ook

ook — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 12:09:32 -0800

I would like to take this opportunity to have the last word in this discussion:

Borborygmus.

Thank you.

By: Karl

Karl — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 13:49:58 -0800

Hot-Pocket.

[/lastword]

By: konolia

konolia — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 14:39:24 -0800

Yeah right.

If y'all would quit SHOWING your butts I doubt anything would have opportunity to crawl up them.

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:47:46 -0800

I agree that posting images is usually distracting and 99 % of the times pointless. But I'm quite afraid to point out that the image itself was far from offensive -- I'm no PETA fan. But really, we see perfume/clothes/whatever billboard ads like that (or even more risqué) every day, in the Western World at least (except Utah, I guess).

And it's not even a gender thing -- I'm a male but I wouldn't be offended by a CK underwear-style photo either

But I'm European, so what do I know

By: matteo

matteo — Fri, 28 Mar 2003 17:49:04 -0800

I meant "CK _male_ underwear photo" of course

By: skallas

skallas — Sat, 29 Mar 2003 00:15:47 -0800

If I hear the word "boyzone" again I'm inlining some real porn.

click

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:11:14 -0800

boyzone!

By: iconomy

iconomy — Sat, 29 Mar 2003 05:54:32 -0800

Boyzone - you can actually hear them, skallas. You know you want to.

By: Argyle

Argyle — Sat, 29 Mar 2003 07:27:47 -0800

I'm confused. I thought boobies were good...

By: dabitch

dabitch — Sat, 29 Mar 2003 09:04:27 -0800

not safe for who's work? I don't surf on the job.

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Sat, 29 Mar 2003 13:12:03 -0800

Yeah, I've wondered about this NSFW issue too, what exactly are you people (not) doing for jobs anyway? I have this image of 17,000+ people sitting in offices and cube farms all over the world just sitting there staring at the blue. Is this why it takes me 20 minutes of waiting to get a real human on the phone at my bank? My insurance company? Or is it the 'the less you do the more they pay you' thing?

By: crunchland

crunchland — Sat, 29 Mar 2003 14:17:32 -0800

yes. metafilter is the cause of all the world's ills.

By: dg

dg — Sat, 29 Mar 2003 16:59:31 -0800

*puts out contract on elwoodwiles*

Uh oh, he's on to us :-)

By: elwoodwiles

elwoodwiles — Sat, 29 Mar 2003 17:07:17 -0800

*watches back, considers getting a day job.*

By: Kafkaesque

Kafkaesque — Sun, 30 Mar 2003 18:47:18 -0800

Shane, your email doesn't seem to be accepting...

I reread this thread after going away for the weekend, and I was out of line. It's not my place to tell you how to conduct yourself and I acted poorly and rudely.

By: Neale

Neale — Sun, 30 Mar 2003 19:26:01 -0800

Metafilter: 65% buttocks and 15% boobies

By: Shane

Shane — Sun, 30 Mar 2003 20:57:53 -0800

No, kafka, I'm sure I took your comments the wrong way, escalating the situation. My apologies. "Bygones," eh.