MadJack: small request regarding Kneifl's avatar

lawtchan

lawtchan

Eat my pickle
Forum Member
Aug 23, 2002
6,278
100
63
56
Bartlett, TN
:com: :com: :com:
Blazer said:
Worm-

I disagree; often these types of arguments expose character and create peaceful discussion which may bring true enlightenment. It is the childish libel and bashing that ruin a truly interesting debate. I do not believe I am a (as you so eloquently put it) HUGE problem in the world today. I am not hiding behind anything. I am simply, calmly, and reverently stating an opinion.

The truth is your right to swing your fist ends at the start of my nose. I believe that the avatars are to be shared with the community. The avatars are a wonderful way to express ones personality. Reading any post without an avatar is like speaking to someone with a blindfold. I think this rational bodes to prohibit certain avatars to be placed in public view. To put it another way: Avatars should be your publicly viewed personality. One's avatar should be no less "restricted" than the restrictions one would put on themselves to walk down the street. In my opinion, the avatar in question is not suitable for this site. A post however, may be a bit more risqu? as that is more of a private conservation than the public persona of an avatar.

The question of internet etiquette is still debatable.

Is it ok to leave a ?lol? in a business e-mail?

Should sites be monitored for terrorist plots/actions?

Should any of us be allowed to discuss a hobby that is illegal (most of us) in the place we take residence?

The list is very long and diverse?..

I believe in etiquette, I believe in free speech and I believe in treating others with respect. I?m sorry that ?makes you sick? but maybe with a little bit of calm rationalization and understanding we can both agree to disagree.

Thanks for reading my point.
Click to expand...
 
fatdaddycool

fatdaddycool

Chi-TownHustler
Forum Member
Mar 26, 2001
13,695
263
83
60
Fort Worth TX usa
Blazer,
What do you mean by "reverently stating your opinion"? Your opinion is no more reverently stated than anyone else, it is simply a bit more loquacious and somewhat condescending. Avatars are no more an expression of personality than complaining about a stupid picture that will be up for a week of what is essentially a naked man. If you find the naked upper torso of a heavy set man to be offensive then I am sorry, but that is ridiculous. Would you look to have S-Love, if that is who it is, removed from the pool if vacationing at a resort. What about showering at the gym? Give me a break, reverent my ass. I would suggest a less pretentious path, it makes you sound whiny and untruthful.
 
B

Blazer

ontherocks
Forum Member
Jan 4, 2003
3,201
3
0
48
Nashville
www.madjacksports.com
fatdaddycool said:
Blazer,
What do you mean by "reverently stating your opinion"? Your opinion is no more reverently stated than anyone else, it is simply a bit more loquacious and somewhat condescending. Avatars are no more an expression of personality than complaining about a stupid picture that will be up for a week of what is essentially a naked man. If you find the naked upper torso of a heavy set man to be offensive then I am sorry, but that is ridiculous. Would you look to have S-Love, if that is who it is, removed from the pool if vacationing at a resort. What about showering at the gym? Give me a break, reverent my ass. I would suggest a less pretentious path, it makes you sound whiny and untruthful.
Click to expand...

FDC-

I attempted to disagree without offending. By ?reverently stating my opinion? I was attempting to show respect toward the other poster?s thoughts and points. Juxtaposed to the name calling and bashing that too often happens here when people disagree, I attempted to show a bit of decorum and understanding of a different observation.

My point really centered on this interesting time in our society. We have embarked upon a new frontier. The new social center of online communication and correspondence is still in its infancy. Rules and etiquette are still yet to be clearly defined. I believe the nude man is inappropriate as an avatar on this site. I also believe a post of the nude man would be (although no less offensive to some) one's right to post. The difference being avatars (in my opinion) are publicly viewed symbols. Those symbols should carry the same level of demureness as one would have walking down a public street. Posts, however, can be more crude and private. A post would be more like a private conservation between friends where one may speak in slang or even off-color as it would be a private affair.

Your analysis of the ?resort pool? and ?gym shower? lead towards that end. Both areas you mentioned are in private or at least a controlled area (like the posts). In these controlled areas one should ?choose to change the channel? or ?choose not to attend said art gallery? if they do not approve. I am for free speech and for the right of all to be as crude as they wish, if they do wish. The avatars however are (in my opinion) like city streets. They should be held to a higher form of protocol.

It really doesn?t matter that much, Jack doesn?t seem to share my opinion and this is his site so I will yield without further discussion to his decision to allow such avatars.


Reverently yours,

-Blazer
 
Last edited:
D

Dicky V

Cash Me In
Forum Member
Dec 26, 2004
369
0
0
57
National City, CA
:ban: :liar: Have all you checked out SLOVE"s self portrate on WAREAGLES thread if you think this one offends you dont let your boss see the real SLOVE..... and what your wife is pissed off about is not the avator it's you gambling and giving you her piece of mind about not having no food in the house think about it been there done that.


"You can't live without them and you cant't kill them"
 
The Judge

The Judge

Pura Vida!
Forum Member
Aug 5, 2004
4,909
29
0
SJO
Blazer said:
FDC-

I attempted to disagree without offending. By ?reverently stating my opinion? I was attempting to show respect toward the other poster?s thoughts and points. Juxtaposed to the name calling and bashing that too often happens here when people disagree, I attempted to show a bit of decorum and understanding of a different observation.

My point really centered on this interesting time in our society. We have embarked upon a new frontier. The new social center of online communication and correspondence is still in its infancy. Rules and etiquette are still yet to be clearly defined. I believe the nude man is inappropriate as an avatar on this site. I also believe a post of the nude man would be (although no less offensive to some) one's right to post. The difference being avatars (in my opinion) are publicly viewed symbols. Those symbols should carry the same level of demureness as one would have walking down a public street. Posts, however, can be more crude and private. A post would be more like a private conservation between friends where one may speak in slang or even off-color as it would be a private affair.

Your analysis of the ?resort pool? and ?gym shower? lead towards that end. Both areas you mentioned are in private or at least a controlled area (like the posts). In these controlled areas one should ?choose to change the channel? or ?choose not to attend said art gallery? if they do not approve. I am for free speech and for the right of all to be as crude as they wish, if they do wish. The avatars however are (in my opinion) like city streets. They should be held to a higher form of protocol.

It really doesn?t matter that much, Jack doesn?t seem to share my opinion and this is his site so I will yield without further discussion to his decision to allow such avatars.


Reverently yours,

-Blazer
Click to expand...
Blazer,

The rules and etiquette of an internet forum such as Mad Jack?s are defined by the operator as each member is made aware of at the time that they apply for membership. While this forum and others like it are certainly available for viewing by the public, so are websites belonging to the KKK and various pornographic enterprises as well religious organizations and the appropriateness or (lack thereof) of the content is ultimately decided by those with the authority to make those decisions.

In order for someone to post an opinion, observation, picture, news article or anything else at Mad Jack?s, they must first apply for membership to the forum and by virtue of the membership requirement, the forum is deemed to be private, not public.

Your distinction between avatars and the actual words in a post escapes me. You defend your belief that avatars should be held to a different standard than posts by arguing that posts are in a ?controlled area? yet in order to view a single avatar on this site, one must first open a thread at which time they are entering the ?controlled area?. The comparison of avatars to ?city streets? seems to me to be quite a stretch.

I do however agree with your final statement. ?It really doesn?t matter that much,? but I am more than a little amused that a picture of a shirtless man with enlarged breasts has seemingly offended any member of this forum.
 
W

worm44

Registered User
Forum Member
Nov 20, 2002
2,864
10
0
I got kicked in the "nuts" today....I will tell you about it later.....
 
Agent 0659

Agent 0659

:mj07:
Forum Member
Dec 21, 2003
17,712
243
0
50
Gym rat
ripken8 said:
This is all your fault agent :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
Click to expand...



:liar: Its the Cowboys fault, they are the idiots that lost. As well as everyone who voted chose that avatar :) Its kinda nice though cause Kneifl doesnt come around and say much. I would guess he has a big piece of cardboard in the upper left side of his computer monitor :mj07: :mj07: :mj07:
 
K

kosar

Centrist
Forum Member
Nov 27, 1999
11,112
55
0
ft myers, fl
Blazer said:
FDC-

I attempted to disagree without offending. By ?reverently stating my opinion? I was attempting to show respect toward the other poster?s thoughts and points. Juxtaposed to the name calling and bashing that too often happens here when people disagree, I attempted to show a bit of decorum and understanding of a different observation.

My point really centered on this interesting time in our society. We have embarked upon a new frontier. The new social center of online communication and correspondence is still in its infancy. Rules and etiquette are still yet to be clearly defined. I believe the nude man is inappropriate as an avatar on this site. I also believe a post of the nude man would be (although no less offensive to some) one's right to post. The difference being avatars (in my opinion) are publicly viewed symbols. Those symbols should carry the same level of demureness as one would have walking down a public street. Posts, however, can be more crude and private. A post would be more like a private conservation between friends where one may speak in slang or even off-color as it would be a private affair.

Your analysis of the ?resort pool? and ?gym shower? lead towards that end. Both areas you mentioned are in private or at least a controlled area (like the posts). In these controlled areas one should ?choose to change the channel? or ?choose not to attend said art gallery? if they do not approve. I am for free speech and for the right of all to be as crude as they wish, if they do wish. The avatars however are (in my opinion) like city streets. They should be held to a higher form of protocol.

It really doesn?t matter that much, Jack doesn?t seem to share my opinion and this is his site so I will yield without further discussion to his decision to allow such avatars.


Reverently yours,

-Blazer
Click to expand...

Wow, I can see you've put a lot of thought, time and effort into this avatar/posting business, huh Blazer?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Bet on MyBookie
Top