MattPie Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 I've explained it 3 times.....no it doesn't. The picture I posted of two smiling coaches was in direct response to the picture itself, and the sarcastic, smartalec tone taken in the posts directly following.....which all assumed it was a picture of Sabres prospects. I was told "you have a problem....get help". At which time I pointed out the double standard of me getting chastised for posting a picture that alone without interpretation, has zero questionable content...as opposed to a picture of young teen boys dressed like that. I guess a follow up to your belief that the original picture is fine....what if someone were to post a picture of 15 and 16 year old GIRLS dressed like that? Same? Better? Worse? And I think it's been explained a few times as well: at best it's in poor taste to link a discussion with paedophiles (and Penn State) where there absolutely no reason to link them. It's like someone saying "I like German food" and you linking a picture of Hitler in response. There, now that I've invoked Godwin, please?
Claude_Verret Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 And I'm just happy someone knows who Puffer is! Yes he was coach and teacher (can't remember what subject) at Hamburg back in the day.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 And I think it's been explained a few times as well: at best it's in poor taste to link a discussion with paedophiles (and Penn State) where there absolutely no reason to link them. It's like someone saying "I like German food" and you linking a picture of Hitler in response. There, now that I've invoked Godwin, please? I will ask you as well.....if a picture of 15 and 16 year old girls in the same outfits is posted....is that the same? Better? Worse? I think I could probably go to jail just googling for that picture.
SwampD Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 I've explained it 3 times.....no it doesn't. The picture I posted of two smiling coaches was in direct response to the picture itself, and the sarcastic, smartalec tone taken in the posts directly following.....which all assumed it was a picture of Sabres prospects. I was told "you have a problem....get help". At which time I pointed out the double standard of me getting chastised for posting a picture that alone without interpretation, has zero questionable content...as opposed to a picture of young teen boys dressed like that. I guess a follow up to your belief that the original picture is fine....what if someone were to post a picture of 15 and 16 year old GIRLS dressed like that? Same? Better? Worse? It is impossible for a picture of a known pediphile to be free from interpretation. You knew that and got the exact responce you wanted from people by posting it IMHO.
LGR4GM Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 And I think it's been explained a few times as well: at best it's in poor taste to link a discussion with paedophiles (and Penn State) where there absolutely no reason to link them. It's like someone saying "I like German food" and you linking a picture of Hitler in response. There, now that I've invoked Godwin, please? ... Hitler likes Pepsi, FNC serves Pepsi Products, Terry Pegula must be in league with Hitler's Ghost.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 It is impossible for a picture of a known pediphile to be free from interpretation. You knew that and got the exact responce you wanted from people by posting it IMHO. Please answer my question. Would you feel comfortable if someone posted a picture of 15 and 16 year old girls in the same outfits?
MattPie Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 ... Hitler likes Pepsi, FNC serves Pepsi Products, Terry Pegula must be in league with Hitler's Ghost. I remember seeing a Japanese ad for heaters that used Hitler. I think the slogan translated to "declare war on the cold front" or something.
LGR4GM Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 I remember seeing a Japanese ad for heaters that used Hitler. I think the slogan translated to "declare war on the cold front" or something. ahh the Japanese... the other place that should never mention Hitler and War in the same sentence.
spndnchz Posted July 25, 2013 Author Report Posted July 25, 2013 I think they'd need to be dressed up as dudes correct? And then followed up with a pic of Earl Bradley yes?
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 I think they'd need to be dressed up as dudes correct? And then followed up with a pic of Earl Bradley yes? No...same outfits......If 15 and 16 year old girls were wearing the same outfits, would you feel comfortable posting it?
SwampD Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 Please answer my question. Would you feel comfortable if someone posted a picture of 15 and 16 year old girls in the same outfits? The question is a red herring but I'll answer it any way,... It depends. Are they models? Are they in a play or skit? Are they highly trained in Krav Maga? There are a million different reasons why I may or may not feel comfortable with a picture of girls dressed like that, but it has nothing to do with why I am confortable with a picture of world class atheletes dressed as girls at a rookie dinner.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 The question is a red herring but I'll answer it any way,... It depends. Are they models? Are they in a play or skit? Are they highly trained in Krav Maga? There are a million different reasons why I may or may not feel comfortable with a picture of girls dressed like that, but it has nothing to do with why I am confortable with a picture of world class atheletes dressed as girls at a rookie dinner. How is it a red herring? I am talking about 15 and 16 year olds wearing the EXACT same outfits.....out on a public street in front of an eatery. I understand your concept of "context". Let's say it's an elite girls junior swimming team who were having a rookie dinner and they dressed up like that. Would you feel comfortable posting that?
SwampD Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 How is it a red herring? I am talking about 15 and 16 year olds wearing the EXACT same outfits.....out on a public street in front of an eatery. I understand your concept of "context". Let's say it's an elite girls junior swimming team who were having a rookie dinner and they dressed up like that. Would you feel comfortable posting that? If you really don't see a difference between the two then no amount of me explaining it is going to change your stance,... so I'm not going to bother.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 If you really don't see a difference between the two then no amount of me explaining it is going to change your stance,... so I'm not going to bother. How is there a difference? I understand your context issue, and I may even agree with it. However.....how is there a difference? I thought we were an equal rights country, correct? If the same picture was posted of 15 and 16 year old girls in the same outfits....."world class" athletes at a rookie dinner.......different how? Are they not the same age, in the same outfits, with the same potential to be arousing to the same percentage of the population? Or let's take Chz's idea......what if the 15 and 16 year old elite female athletes dressed provocatively in male outfits. I don't know.....say...as a pool boy in cutoff, ripped, denim shorts.....and a flannel plaid shirt with sleeves cutoff and all buttons undone, except for one that prevents the full chest to be exposed. Or say....a Chippendale outfit with tight spandex shorts, bare midriff, a tuxedo dickey dangling over the neck with a bowtie........that's 2 for starters. Should we post that? Would YOU post that? Would you not expect various commentary coming from the rest of the community if that was posted?
K-9 Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 Surely Benson and Myers isn't all you've got. Must you encourage him? The meds are running dangerously low as it is. GO SABRES!!! (and that's with 3, count em THREE, exclamation points, Ghost)
skaught Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 How is it a red herring? I am talking about 15 and 16 year olds wearing the EXACT same outfits.....out on a public street in front of an eatery. I understand your concept of "context". Let's say it's an elite girls junior swimming team who were having a rookie dinner and they dressed up like that. Would you feel comfortable posting that? yes, as long as it gets you to stop talking
IKnowPhysics Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 Still waiting for any of this to happen. It's no longer worthwhile to waste my energies swimming upstream in such an environment.... So cheers to y'all. ... I won't be involved much. I'm not wasting my time in petty stuff anymore. ... so I will accept it and move on.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 Must you encourage him? The meds are running dangerously low as it is. GO SABRES!!! (and that's with 3, count em THREE, exclamation points, Ghost) Sorry. 3 it is. And while we're at it....and you aren't one of the main culprits, just the most recent.....is it really nice or wise to continuously imply someone has a psychological disorder, make reference to it, and then goad it? I mean, there are posters that have come through the ranks here that I'd bet dollars to doughnuts are, or should be medicated......feel free to feel the same about me if you'd like....but the last thing in the world I would do is to imply that, and then belittle them. That's not swell. I know I'm not always the most polite in some of my descriptive references, but that pretty much is always 100% in reference to the unwavering pom-pom waving for the boys in blue and gold. Still waiting for any of this to happen. Other than one post in an OT thread....this is the only thread I've commented in for heading on 2 weeks. There is another Girgensons thread open if you feel serious discussion about multiple social issues and relevance to prominent public figures is too much to handle at this point. You put the quarter in the slot hun....you know what you are getting........
skaught Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 Still waiting for any of this to happen. I bet if everyone stopped posting in this thread he'd just start replying to himself.
Ghost of Dwight Drane Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 I bet if everyone stopped posting in this thread he'd just start replying to himself. Good idea. And also.....if you want to talk about skate and helmet wearing Z.....you know where to find it.
K-9 Posted July 25, 2013 Report Posted July 25, 2013 Sorry. 3 it is. And while we're at it....and you aren't one of the main culprits, just the most recent.....is it really nice or wise to continuously imply someone has a psychological disorder, make reference to it, and then goad it? I mean, there are posters that have come through the ranks here that I'd bet dollars to doughnuts are, or should be medicated......feel free to feel the same about me if you'd like....but the last thing in the world I would do is to imply that, and then belittle them. That's not swell. I know I'm not always the most polite in some of my descriptive references, but that pretty much is always 100% in reference to the unwavering pom-pom waving for the boys in blue and gold. I was talking about my meds. GO BILLS!!!
darksabre Posted July 26, 2013 Report Posted July 26, 2013 Y'know, I seen me a mermaid once. I even seen me a shark eat an octopus. But I ain't never seen no phantom Russian submarine.
spndnchz Posted July 26, 2013 Author Report Posted July 26, 2013 Y'know, I seen me a mermaid once. I even seen me a shark eat an octopus. But I ain't never seen no phantom Russian submarine. Oh but they're out there. I get updates every time they move.
darksabre Posted July 26, 2013 Report Posted July 26, 2013 Oh but they're out there. I get updates every time they move. I knew it!
JJFIVEOH Posted July 26, 2013 Report Posted July 26, 2013 How is there a difference? I understand your context issue, and I may even agree with it. However.....how is there a difference? I thought we were an equal rights country, correct? If the same picture was posted of 15 and 16 year old girls in the same outfits....."world class" athletes at a rookie dinner.......different how? Are they not the same age, in the same outfits, with the same potential to be arousing to the same percentage of the population? Or let's take Chz's idea......what if the 15 and 16 year old elite female athletes dressed provocatively in male outfits. I don't know.....say...as a pool boy in cutoff, ripped, denim shorts.....and a flannel plaid shirt with sleeves cutoff and all buttons undone, except for one that prevents the full chest to be exposed. Or say....a Chippendale outfit with tight spandex shorts, bare midriff, a tuxedo dickey dangling over the neck with a bowtie........that's 2 for starters. Should we post that? Would YOU post that? Would you not expect various commentary coming from the rest of the community if that was posted? I didn't see any people having issues when every newspaper in America had the 2012 Olympic US Women's Gymanstic team on the front page. No it wasn't provocative, but neither is a bunch of males dressed up in women's clothing.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.