See ya....again!

Post by **_Bond...James Bond** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:02 am

Wha happened? Did Porter have the Temple Garments as his pic?

(I wish he'd go back to being Porter)

_Yoda · Post by **_Yoda** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:12 am

Bond...James Bond wrote:Wha happened? Did Porter have the Temple Garments as his pic?

(I wish he'd go back to being Porter)

Yes, he had the temple garments as his pic. But he repented.

;)

Boaz will always be PP to me.

LOL

Post by **_Boaz & Lidia** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:24 am

Scottie wrote:I'm not sure the new avatar is much better....

In case you did not know this, a backwards L, capitol V, and a hyphen all existed before Smith stole the square and compass from the masons.

Post by **_Scottie** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:34 am

Bond...James Bond wrote:(I wish he'd go back to being Porter)

I wish he'd get hit by a truck.

Post by **_neworder** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 7:59 am

I really don't care for the new avatar also.

If you want, you can block a persons avatar if you are using FireFox. Download the "Adblock Plus" extension from

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865

Then you can right click on any image and block it forever and you will never have to see it again.

_Ray A · Post by **_Ray A** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:03 am

neworder wrote:I really don't care for the new avatar also.

Kudos.

neworder wrote:If you want, you can block a persons avatar if you are using FireFox. Download the "Adblock Plus" extension from

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865

Then you can right click on any image and block it forever and you will never have to see it again.

I don't think that's the point. It's not so much that they don't want to see it, and they don't, but others can, and it mocks their faith.

Post by **_harmony** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 8:15 am

Ray A wrote:
neworder wrote:I really don't care for the new avatar also.

Kudos.

neworder wrote:If you want, you can block a persons avatar if you are using FireFox. Download the "Adblock Plus" extension from

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865

Then you can right click on any image and block it forever and you will never have to see it again.

I don't think that's the point. It's not so much that they don't want to see it, and they don't, but others can, and it mocks their faith.

I object to underwear, no matter what style. If they were Victoria's Secret, I'd still think it was in poor taste. Underwear is not supposed to be seen, period. That's why it's under wear.

Post by **_neworder** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 4:22 pm

Ray A wrote:
neworder wrote:I really don't care for the new avatar also.

Kudos.

neworder wrote:If you want, you can block a persons avatar if you are using FireFox. Download the "Adblock Plus" extension from

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/1865

Then you can right click on any image and block it forever and you will never have to see it again.

I don't think that's the point. It's not so much that they don't want to see it, and they don't, but others can, and it mocks their faith.

I agree that it is in very very poor taste and is used to mock. When critics pull this kind of stuff you have to really wonder what their motives are. This "Ed Decker" style of behavior usually results in just pissing people off.

Post by **_Blixa** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:03 pm

But what do you all think about the way the issue was resolved?

When I first saw the "offending avatar" (or avatars since there were two with garments) I was curious how this could be handled on a board with no censoring or banning, but instead a policy segregating "offensive" content. The use of an avatar to contain "offensive" content found a potential weak spot in this practice since it couldn't be relegated to only one discussion area. I wondered what the outcome would be and was surprised that it was handled relatively painlessly with a private request to B&L and his acceding to it.

What think ye?

Post by **_christopher** » Sun Jan 27, 2008 5:06 pm

Blixa wrote:What think ye?

Pay Lay Ale.......?