DiscussMormonism.com

LDSToronto wrote:Are hermaphrodites God's children? Can a hermaphrodite hold the priesthood? That took me two seconds. I could think of a whole bunch of other topics if I put my mind to it.

See? You just posed those question very adequately without the need to display pictures of the relevant people's genitals.

Hell, I could even discuss your posting style and content without the slightest need for a picture of your equipment (no, spare us, please ...). In fact, here I am doing it. Easy, no?

RockSlider wrote:

LDSToronto wrote:It's wonderful to see the mods punishing the innocent. Ludwig, zeezrom. Hey, why don't you guys line up and kick Ceeboo in the nuts while you are at it?

I've followed this free Ludwigm ordeal for long before I was a mod. It's my observation that NO moderator intervention has taken place until Stormy has tried to deal with your recent push the limits thread.

This has been on ongoing battle between a few and the administrator of this board.

So punish the masses for the actions of a few. Sounds reasonable.

Rockslider wrote:No it was not the moderators that have led to this need for the law. Its a few that disrespected the administrators previous actions against Ludwigm and would not let up on their attack against shades.

Is 'respect the moderators' a board rule? Or are you guys just angry? And seriously, what attack? I ask again, WHAT RULE WAS BROKEN?

Or are we just gonna have to take a blow to the nards every time one of you guys get your feelings hurt?

H.

Chap wrote:

LDSToronto wrote:Are hermaphrodites God's children? Can a hermaphrodite hold the priesthood? That took me two seconds. I could think of a whole bunch of other topics if I put my mind to it.

See? You just posed those question very adequately without the need to display pictures of the relevant people's genitals.

Hell, I could even discuss your posting style and content without the slightest need for a picture of your equipment (no, spare us, please ...). In fact, here I am doing it. Easy, no?

Sure. Maybe I'd never, ever need to post a picture of a girl with a penis. But then again, maybe I would have to post a picture of a girl with a penis. I don't know what the future holds, and now with this strange new 'letter of the law' dictum, I have to know exactly what is in and what is out.

H.

LDSToronto wrote:So punish the masses for the actions of a few. Sounds reasonable.

I'm confused, Ludwigm has been punished by shades (the one) for what ... six months, a year? During this time zee has been a poster I click on every time to see the wonderful art he has posted. As well as others that have decided to post images with their thoughts.

Before you and others keep pushing shades to free ludwigm, how were the masses being censored or punished because of the private actions of shades/ludwigm.

Your free ludwigm campaign is what is punishing the masses for the actions of one.

Is 'respect the moderators' a board rule? Or are you guys just angry? And seriously, what attack? I ask again, WHAT RULE WAS BROKEN?

Most boards have a rule about complaining about moderator actions. Geeze, I know ... why don't you push this issue to the limit as well, so we can try and set some definitive set of rules about endless bitching about moderation actions. Then of course you can blame the moderation team about their angry and lack of vision in setting the rule.

Or are we just gonna have to take a blow to the nards every time one of you guys get your feelings hurt?

CFR where any of the mods have had their feelings hurt and given you a blow to the nards

LDSToronto wrote:

RockSlider wrote:This has been on ongoing battle between a few and the administrator of this board.

So punish the masses for the actions of a few.

Not a few.

One.

Chap wrote:

LDSToronto wrote:Are hermaphrodites God's children? Can a hermaphrodite hold the priesthood? That took me two seconds. I could think of a whole bunch of other topics if I put my mind to it.

See? You just posed those question very adequately without the need to display pictures of the relevant people's genitals.

Hell, I could even discuss your posting style and content without the slightest need for a picture of your equipment (no, spare us, please ...). In fact, here I am doing it. Easy, no?

LDSToronto wrote:
Sure. Maybe I'd never, ever need to post a picture of a girl with a penis. But then again, maybe I would have to post a picture of a girl with a penis. I don't know what the future holds, and now with this strange new 'letter of the law' dictum, I have to know exactly what is in and what is out.

H.

When you find that you want to raise a topic centrally related to Mormonism that you are convinced cannot be adequately discussed without posting pictures of people's genitals such as La creation du monde I suggest you post a succinct explanation of why that need exists, and then we can discuss it.

Until then, little or no harm will be done by observing the 'no genitals' rule.

Aha! I know the phrase I want: It's time to move on ....

RockSlider wrote:Your free ludwigm campaign is what is punishing the masses for the actions of one.

And why would you punish others for something that I have done, legally, within the bound of the board rules?

RockSlider wrote:Most boards have a rule about complaining about moderator actions.

Not this board.

Rockslider wrote:Geeze, I know ... why don't you push this issue to the limit as well, so we can try and set some definitive set of rules about endless bitching about moderation actions.

Challenge accepted. Let me know when you guys become untouchable douche-bags, will you?

Rockslider wrote:Then of course you can blame the moderation team about their angry and lack of vision in setting the rule.

I will.

RockSlider wrote:CFR where any of the mods have had their feelings hurt and given you a blow to the nards

No. I am don't give references to mods who make bad decisions. IS that enough yet? Are you going to put a rule in place soon?

H.

Chap wrote:Until then, little or no harm will be done by observing the 'no genitals' rule.

I have no problem with following board rules. But I do want clarification on whether we can show pictures that depict:

1. Male nipples?
2. One penis (you state penii, I assume you meant penises, and that multiple penises are not allowed)
3. One vulva?
4. The clitoris?
5. Labia minora, if the vulva is out of sight?
6. Bare buttocks?
7. Pictures of nipples, areolae, penises, vulvae, pubes if they pictures of primates other than humans? Non-primates?
8. A shaved mons pubis?
9. Testicles?
10. A woman wearing a micro bikini?
11. A woman in a chilly room?
12. The anus (male or female)?

Chap wrote:Aha! I know the phrase I want: It's time to move on ....

By all means, move on. I'm not done here.

H.

Chap wrote:... by observing the 'no genitals' rule...

There is no 'no genitals' rule.

H.

*sigh*

It's simple, LDST: PG means no pictures of genitals.

You're a smart man; you know this. I'm not sure why you want to push Shades' on this.