Mr. Pyrrho, A little clarification, if you please.

[Rouser2]

One certainly must respect the right of a private forum to censor
anything it chooses and if in doing so it chooses to shoot itself
in the foot, you have that right. But upon a complaint from a forum
member you say you have deleted the entire "pic-a-caption" thread?

But you have not deleted anything but a photo which every major
newspaper and TV station is running. And yet you have left all of
the allegedly "offending" captions in place? But what sense does
that make to anyone? If there is an offending caption, why don't
you point it out and delete IT? And if there are people on this
board who cannot differentiate between stupid "jock" humor and
serious satire, then why don't you simply expand the forum rules to include "no stupid jock humor nor serious satire" allowed???? It
may offend those who can't tell the difference."

Of course, to delete specific posts might require some
discriminating thought, something one might hope a forum
administrator competent to do.

For example, I personally wrote 4 captions. One read: "Winning the Hearts and Minds". Do you find that offensive? Do you find it to be stupid "Jock" humor? Or do you find it to be serious satire, on a serious political topic? I'd just like to know. I think a lot of forum members would like to know. And another one: "You've come a long way baby!" Are you too young to recall that a major cigarette manufacturer used this slogan to lure modern hippy, "liberated" women to enjoy the wonderfully liberating benefits of smoking their particular cigarette brand?
Do you not see the cigarette dangling from the satanic, smiling
mouth of an apparently fully liberated female GI engaging in
humiliating sexual abuse of a male Muslim Arab prisoner? Do neither you nor the complaining poster not see the connection??? Do you not see this satanic image the way the billions of Muslim Arabs will see it for the next one thousand years??? Not as a dumb jock joke, but as a symbol of American/Western decadence? Do you see no redeeming value in pointing this out to the many sleep-walking Americans who would down-play or excuse it? Is this your idea of "not in keeping with the JREF
goals of a better future for the younger generation?" And yet, I
see plenty of really dumb, off-topic posts here as well -- none of
which you have seen fit to delete? Is this forum not a "political"
forum for engaging in political thought, argument, criticism, or
only that which is "politically correct"??? A little clarification and a whole lot more specificity, please.

-- Rouser

[phildonnia]

Originally posted by Rouser2
But you have not deleted anything but a photo which every major newspaper and TV station is running.

Yes, Pyrrho has failed to supress the distribution of the picture by removing it from the forum. But I didn't think that was the point. If I posted a photo that every major porn site was running, that would probably get deleted too.

[Tmy]

But it wasnt porn. THe same photos (and worse ones) were linked in other threads talking about the abuse.

And I kinda liked my "You're in Tourture Country." caption.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by phildonnia


Yes, Pyrrho has failed to supress the distribution of the picture by removing it from the forum. But I didn't think that was the point. If I posted a photo that every major porn site was running, that would probably get deleted too.


"Porn" was not the reason given for the censoring of the photo. It would be helpful if some logical reason were given. Then we would all know what in fact WAS "the point".

-- Rouser

[Wrath of the Swarm]

What was the reason for its removal? In that thread, you were being a 'jerk'.

What does being a 'jerk' entail? That's up to the moderators. If you refuse to admit you're a jerk, that in itself is being a jerk, and the moderators will delete your posts.

Any questions, other than asking for a definition of 'jerk'? No? Good.

[Abdul Alhazred]

I'm 100% with Pyrrho on this one, despite having beeen slapped down by him for an "inappropriate content" pic on one occasion.

In this case I'd say it's not the pic itself, but the context.

The pic itself is all over the 'net already, so there's no question of censoring the pic.

But it is altogether appropriate for this forum to suppress a "caption this funny pic" thread for a pic of illegal torture, however un-gruesome the pic may be.

It is legit to debate how tortuous the torture really was compared to what the UN did sit still for.

But funny captions for torture pics, though not anticipated by the moderators, are clearly out of line on purely human standards IMO.

[American]

Originally posted by Rouser2
One certainly must respect the right of a private forum to censor
anything it chooses and if in doing so it chooses to shoot itself
in the foot, you have that right.


Either this preface means nothing given the 30+ lines of stupidity that follow it, or those lines mean even less since here you admit that any privately run website owes you NOTHING.

Amazingly pretentious thread.. if I owed this site I'd pull the plug just for spite.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Rouser2
One certainly must respect the right of a private forum to censor
anything it chooses and if in doing so it chooses to shoot itself
in the foot, you have that right. But upon a complaint from a forum
member you say you have deleted the entire "pic-a-caption" thread?

The thread was not deleted. I removed the picture, and locked the thread. It still exists here:

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=39684


But you have not deleted anything but a photo which every major
newspaper and TV station is running. And yet you have left all of
the allegedly "offending" captions in place? But what sense does
that make to anyone? If there is an offending caption, why don't
you point it out and delete IT? And if there are people on this
board who cannot differentiate between stupid "jock" humor and
serious satire, then why don't you simply expand the forum rules to include "no stupid jock humor nor serious satire" allowed???? It
may offend those who can't tell the difference."

Of course, to delete specific posts might require some
discriminating thought, something one might hope a forum
administrator competent to do.

For example, I personally wrote 4 captions. One read: "Winning the Hearts and Minds". Do you find that offensive? Do you find it to be stupid "Jock" humor? Or do you find it to be serious satire, on a serious political topic? I'd just like to know. I think a lot of forum members would like to know. And another one: "You've come a long way baby!" Are you too young to recall that a major cigarette manufacturer used this slogan to lure modern hippy, "liberated" women to enjoy the wonderfully liberating benefits of smoking their particular cigarette brand?
Do you not see the cigarette dangling from the satanic, smiling
mouth of an apparently fully liberated female GI engaging in
humiliating sexual abuse of a male Muslim Arab prisoner? Do neither you nor the complaining poster not see the connection??? Do you not see this satanic image the way the billions of Muslim Arabs will see it for the next one thousand years??? Not as a dumb jock joke, but as a symbol of American/Western decadence? Do you see no redeeming value in pointing this out to the many sleep-walking Americans who would down-play or excuse it? Is this your idea of "not in keeping with the JREF
goals of a better future for the younger generation?" And yet, I
see plenty of really dumb, off-topic posts here as well -- none of
which you have seen fit to delete? Is this forum not a "political"
forum for engaging in political thought, argument, criticism, or
only that which is "politically correct"??? A little clarification and a whole lot more specificity, please.

-- Rouser
I read the thread, looked at the photograph, read the captions, and decided that it was inappropriate for the JREF Forum and was detrimental to the JREF organization on the basis that it depicted a scene of gross inhumanity. I locked the thread because it appeared to be mocking the prisoners being mistreated. Such mockery is completely contrary to the mission and purpose of the JREF. It is part of my position as administrator to make such judgments. I have an obligation to the JREF to place the interests of the organization above the interests of Forum users.

I subsequently removed other pictures of the torture of Iraqi prisoners on the basis that they depicted scenes of torture. In addition to the Iraqi prisoner photos, I removed a picture of a person being tortured on the rack. Such pictures are depictions of violence, and in my judgment, they needed to be removed. I did leave the URLs intact, except for those images that were uploaded as attachments.

While the photographs of the mistreatment and torture of Iraqi prisoners may have been published all over the world, it does not follow that they are thereby suitable for publication here. While they may not fit the typical definition of "violence", it was my judgment that they were sufficiently violent to merit removal.

Your explanations of the meanings of the various "captions" are quite eloquent, but such meanings are not evident in the original thread. The "captions" can too easily be interpreted as making light of the torture and mistreatment of human beings. No disrespect, but I simply could not allow it to continue.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Wrath of the Swarm
What was the reason for its removal? In that thread, you were being a 'jerk'.

What does being a 'jerk' entail? That's up to the moderators. If you refuse to admit you're a jerk, that in itself is being a jerk, and the moderators will delete your posts.

Any questions, other than asking for a definition of 'jerk'? No? Good.

How ironic it is, that the same high-minded individuals who seem to do the most bitching about JREF content seem to be the pre-eminent instigators and violators of JREF standards. You can take your own sophomoric ad hominems and stick 'em where the sun don't shine, sonny. Mr. Pyrrho may answer for himself -- if he has an answer.


-- Rouser

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Pyrrho


I read the thread, looked at the photograph, read the captions, and decided that it was inappropriate for the JREF Forum and was detrimental to the JREF organization on the basis that it depicted a scene of gross inhumanity.

I challenge you to show me one inhumane thing about the photo. As far as I can tell there were Iraqi militants being given the customary strip search with hood on and hands bound. The picture depicts a rather immature female pointing at one man's genitalia.

I can understand removing a pic of the Iraqi "human pyramid" photo that without question shows inhumanity of the type endured by college freshman during hell week, but the stripped lineup shows none.

I said it once and I'll say it again, that photograph in particular is a critical thinking exercise. I haven't seen evidence yet that these men were stripped for the purpose of being humiliated.

[Mr Manifesto]

Originally posted by corplinx


I challenge you to show me one inhumane thing about the photo. As far as I can tell there were Iraqi militants being given the customary strip search with hood on and hands bound. The picture depicts a rather immature female pointing at one man's genitalia.

I can understand removing a pic of the Iraqi "human pyramid" photo that without question shows inhumanity of the type endured by college freshman during hell week, but the stripped lineup shows none.

I said it once and I'll say it again, that photograph in particular is a critical thinking exercise. I haven't seen evidence yet that these men were stripped for the purpose of being humiliated.

Clyde Lewis hasn't seen any evidence yet that anyone has landed on the moon.

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by corplinx

I challenge you to show me one inhumane thing about the photo. As far as I can tell there were Iraqi militants being given the customary strip search with hood on and hands bound. The picture depicts a rather immature female pointing at one man's genitalia.

I can understand removing a pic of the Iraqi "human pyramid" photo that without question shows inhumanity of the type endured by college freshman during hell week, but the stripped lineup shows none.

I said it once and I'll say it again, that photograph in particular is a critical thinking exercise. I haven't seen evidence yet that these men were stripped for the purpose of being humiliated.
We don't know which it is, do we? Do I err on the side of letting them be published here, taking uncertainty into account, or do I err on the side of considering the effect on the JREF reputation, that being that the JREF tolerates the mockery of POWs? I chose the latter.

[American]

Originally posted by Rouser2

How ironic it is, that the same high-minded individuals who seem to do the most bitching about JREF content seem to be the pre-eminent instigators and violators of JREF standards. You can take your own sophomoric ad hominems and stick 'em where the sun don't shine, sonny. Mr. Pyrrho may answer for himself -- if he has an answer.


You seriously need to use your money to go buy your own website. Call it NAKED-IRAQI-CAPTION-CONTEST.com, assuming that's not already taken (I bet it is, but be creative and you'll find a good title).

Above all, STOP COMPLAINING. For your own sake, I'm concerned for your blood pressure. Whining is really bad for your health.

[Evolver]

Damn! I agree with American. I'll have to go play in traffic.

I have a most twisted sense of humor, but I try to stay away from posting in topics like the aforementioned. It's a little too easy to cause lasting problems with someone who might take your words the wrong way.

Pyrrho's right in this instance.

[Rouser2]

riginally posted by American [/i]


>>Above all, STOP COMPLAINING.

You know, if you really can't think of anything productive to say, then why not do humanity a favor --- go gargle on some razor blades.


-- Rouser

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Pyrrho [/i]


>>We don't know which it is, do we? Do I err on the side of letting them be published here, taking uncertainty into account, or do I err on the side of considering the effect on the JREF reputation, that being that the JREF tolerates the mockery of POWs? I chose the latter.


The censorship of the photo in question makes a mockery not of the POWs but of the JREF, and is in direct contradiction to its alleged "goals". Publication of the the photo in question does not mock Iraqi POWs, but rather indicts their sadistic American tormentors. In a free society, the body politic needs to confront its shortcomings and try to correct them and not bury their collective heads in the sand. The photo is there for all to see -- all over the world's media -- everywhere but on the JREF forum. Shame.

-- Rouser

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Abdul Alhazred
But funny captions for torture pics, though not anticipated by the moderators, are clearly out of line on purely human standards IMO. It certainly wasn't clear to the people who posted before the pictures were removed.

If the boards are going to be censored on "moral" or "community standards" grounds, wouldn't it be appropriate for those standards to be made clear before intervention is required?

[Pyrrho]

Originally posted by Rouser2
Originally posted by Pyrrho [/i]


>>We don't know which it is, do we? Do I err on the side of letting them be published here, taking uncertainty into account, or do I err on the side of considering the effect on the JREF reputation, that being that the JREF tolerates the mockery of POWs? I chose the latter.


The censorship of the photo in question makes a mockery not of the POWs but of the JREF, and is in direct contradiction to its alleged "goals". Publication of the the photo in question does not mock Iraqi POWs, but rather indicts their sadistic American tormentors. In a free society, the body politic needs to confront its shortcomings and try to correct them and not bury their collective heads in the sand. The photo is there for all to see -- all over the world's media -- everywhere but on the JREF forum. Shame.

-- Rouser
The photo was first removed from the "captions" thread, which was locked, for the reasons given in my previous post. If I remove the photo from one thread, and do not remove it from others, I am guilty of inconsistency. If I remove one of the set of photos, but not others, I am also guilty of inconsistency.

I do not agree that the JREF is obliged to publish the photos here. They are freely available at the links which were left intact in the various posts. I know many people here do not agree with such an approach, as the removal of the photographs does change the content of the posts and does change the effect of the posts to a certain degree. Regrettable, but in my judgment the photos should not be published here.

[Wrath of the Swarm]

Originally posted by Pyrrho
We don't know which it is, do we? Do I err on the side of letting them be published here, taking uncertainty into account, or do I err on the side of considering the effect on the JREF reputation, that being that the JREF tolerates the mockery of POWs? I chose the latter. Why shouldn't the JREF tolerate that? It's expected to tolerate everything else.

And yet the people who complained that this wasn't "real" torture, that the prisoners didn't really have anything done to them that deserved the name "torture", didn't have their posts moved or erased.

Consistency. Not just a pretty word.

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by Pyrrho [/i]

>>The photo was first removed from the "captions" thread, which was locked, for the reasons given in my previous post.

But you gave no specific reasons.

>> If I remove the photo from one thread, and do not remove it from others, I am guilty of inconsistency.

Of course.

>> If I remove one of the set of photos, but not others, I am also guilty of inconsistency.

Again, of course.

>>I do not agree that the JREF is obliged to publish the photos here.

No one claims the JREF has any such obligation, only that it would be nice to know the guidelines -- if you can cite any.

>> They are freely available at the links which were left intact in the various posts. I know many people here do not agree with such an approach, as the removal of the photographs does change the content of the posts and does change the effect of the posts to a certain degree. Regrettable, but in my judgment the photos should not be published here.

No, what you previously said or implied was regrettable was the context of certain un-named captions as/per the complaint of a certain forum member. But instead of pointing out the captions and deleting them, you instead deleted the un-offending photo. That's just like punishing the cat for what the dog did to your carpet. Makes no sense, sir.


-- Rouser

[Dancing David]

Or punishing a rape victim, which is what the dog did to the cat on the rug.

[American]

Originally posted by Rouser2

No, what you previously said or implied was regrettable was the context of certain un-named captions as/per the complaint of a certain forum member. But instead of pointing out the captions and deleting them, you instead deleted the un-offending photo. That's just like punishing the cat for what the dog did to your carpet. Makes no sense, sir.


-- Rouser


Wow you're still complaining. I NEVER could have guessed you would still be pissing and moaning, but here you are anyway!

You BABY!

GET A LIFE!!!

[Rouser2]

Originally posted by American [/i]

>>Wow you're still complaining. I NEVER could have guessed you would still be pissing and moaning, but here you are anyway!
You BABY!GET A LIFE!!!


Hey -- One Note Song -- Get a Brain.


-- Rouser