Welcome back guys!

Well, a welcome of sorts.  Unfortunately, the hackers emptied the user file, and so we are down to three users right now (which is a considerable improvement from zero, as I can at least now access the admin panel!)

The bad news of course is that that means that you may get a bunch of spam from the hackers 🙁

I am slowly registering more people, as I can get details from your posts, but I don’t think there will be any problem in you just re-registering.  I’m still wall-to-wall with stuff, but should have some time on Sunday to find out whether there is any other damage, and try to fix it.  Also, maybe, post 🙂

Missed you guys.



109 thoughts on “Welcome back guys!

  1. I think Mung was trying to jokingly suggest that his fellow travelers elsewhere accused him of abusing the other commenters at TSZ (who are as little children to someone of his rhetorical genius).
    As opposed to complaining about any allegations made against him here.

    OK, so Mung says:

    Anyone got a link?

  2. Lizzie:
    And for those following along at UD, Joe responds:

    It wasn’t porn, Lizzie. Not by the standard and accepted definition of porn. However if what I posted was porn then what you posted- the statue of a naked man- was also porn.

    What I posted was disgusting, but it wasn’t porn.

    And I posted it because the ilk at the septic zone is disgusting.

    It was a link to a crotch shot of a partially dressed woman.The “statue of a naked man” was Michelangelo’s David. The first is most definitely NSFW.The second is SFW.

    And that is the point.

    I’ve been successfully ignoring Joe since before he wore out his welcome here, but this just struck me as odd. Since he claims that what he posted isn’t pornography, I suspect that he’s splitting hairs based on the dictionary definition, to wit:

    Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings

    I’m guessing that Joe is arguing that the image he posted is not intended to stimulate erotic feelings.

    Personally, assuming my guess is correct, I find that kind of rhetorical squirming as offensive as the act of posting the image in the first place. I will, however, admit to being unwilling to grant him much benefit of the doubt. Perhaps we need the view of an objective third party.

    Does anyone know kairosfocus well enough to get him to opine on whether or not the image was pornographic and, independently, whether or not it was appropriate for Joe to post it here?

  3. Patrick,

    I think someone should ask KF to view the image and make a judgement as to whether he would allow it on his website or post it on UD on UD.

  4. I’m guessing that Joe is arguing that the image he posted is not intended to stimulate erotic feelings.

    Yep, that is his stock defence, frequently trotted out along with the ritual justification that it is exactly what posters here deserved. Nonetheless, I think KF would have a fit.

  5. OK, good.
    I just don’t want the UD denizens to get the impression that we won’t treat them right if they turn up here. I’d be delighted to see them.

  6. No, the question really is not ambiguous, and I am not going to try to find the link. I deleted it for the simple reason that it was, by any standards “Not Safe For Work” – in other words, anyone inadvertently clicking on the link would find an image staring at them that they definitely would not want any casual observer thinking they had chosen to view. It was an explicit shot of a real woman’s exposed genitals.

    To pretend that a photograph of Michelangelo’s marble sculpture of David is comparable is simply silly.

  7. The story is told of Gish admitting offline (that is, privately and off the record) that he understood that his claim about bullfrog genes was incorrect. And why did he keep repeating it at each debate? Well, because THIS audience didn’t know it was incorrect, and might find it persuasive, and thereby find Jesus and be saved! So the notion of what’s a lie gets stretched pretty thin. If saying things you know are wrong is justified because you’re doing so for a greater True Purpose, creationists never lie at all.

  8. People have answered him effectively by simply requesting that he post the same link at UD and see what happens. He falls silent and does not post it.

Leave a Reply