I posted several photos of women. They remained until I posted a photo of two women enjoying a shower together, then the entire thread was deleted. There were no sexual parts exposed, they were just rubbing each other with soap. They were non-violent, non-profane, beautiful images of love.

It appears that participation in the gay community is grounds for censorship on this forum. I see no such discrimination throughout the rest of the Internet. What gives?

-- (just@tested.it), March 05, 2000

Answers

Are you y2kpro?

-- (naughty@naughty.boy), March 05, 2000.

And pictures of women, in the shower together or not, has WHAT to do with Y2K?

-- J (Y2J@home.comm), March 05, 2000.

Perhaps the photos [which I saw, BTW] were removed because pictures of beautiful women have nothing to do with THIS forum? I might ALSO point out that ALL the photos you poster were posted SO quickly that it certainly isn't obvious that the LAST [which I ALSO saw] was the reason for deletion.

They were all in good taste, IMO, but this isn't a forum for or about women in any sense. This is a Y2k forum. Women [and indeed gay women] have been around since the beginning, wouldn't you agree?

-- Anita (notgiving@anymore.com), March 05, 2000.

This forum must be where all the geniuses are hiding

Geez

-- Uncle Bob (unclb0b@aol.com), March 05, 2000.

Hey, Bob, how about posting the article about China over here? Some of these guys need something constructive to debate.

-- (please@no.spam), March 05, 2000.

On the other hand, for there to be a comprehensive test, perhaps you should also post the same set of pictures at TB2K/II and Biffy. I, for one, would be interested to know the outcome.

-- I'm Here, I'm There (I'm Everywhere@so.beware), March 05, 2000.

Anita,

This is a Y2K forum? Could have fooled me!

Out of the 205 threads I counted on the main page, 10 of them are about Y2K.

-- (this.place.is@more.censored.than.my.public.library), March 05, 2000.

"This is a Y2k forum."

Anita, what the hell is a y2k forum? Are you still monitoring gliches?

This forum has morphed into a fruit basket where people talk about all kinds of subjects. (Not that the conversations are fruity, it's just an analogy.)

I didn't see those pictures, but if they were tasteful I don't think they should have been deleted. People have seen naked men and women before, and besides most of us would just skip over them. Why risk a porno spammer with deletion? I think there's only one child here (Porky) and his mind has been damaged by all the crap thats gone one here for the last year. (Remember the picture of "Liza Z?")

This is a hard call. This is a real hard call. It's the only censorship issue I struggle with.

Can we think about this for awhile?



-- laura (Ladylogic@......), March 05, 2000.

Are you SURE those were lesbians?

-- Ra (tion@l.1), March 05, 2000.

Thats rich! Lady Logic is actually going to think about something. Guess censorship is in the eye of the beholder? So you gonna spambomb this forum like you did the ones in the past? You are one stupid ugly bitch.

-- Manny (No@dip.com), March 05, 2000.

In terms of addressing the topic, I thought the pictures were about average. I'd say the *content* of those posts was a bit above average, but I've always had problems with material not original with the poster -- and I seriously doubt any of those pictures described the actual poster. I think if you're going to put *other* people's material up, a link is more efficient.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), March 05, 2000.

Flint, you just demonstrated again why I enjoy your responses.

-- Mumsie (shezdremn@aol.com), March 05, 2000.

I said throw 'em to the lions.

-- Saint (Peter@the.Gate), March 05, 2000.

"Why risk a porno spammer with deletion?"

Laura (Ladylogic@....) thinks that deleting someone's posts automatically means they will spam the forum? I don't think normal people would react that way.

-- (Jballou@midwest.net), March 05, 2000.

What connection has this with the purpose of the forum, all of the lesbians I have met have been extremely hostile towards heterosexual males.

-- Sir Richard (richard.dalek@unum.co.uk), March 06, 2000.

Laura, dear one, Be Careful of the ground on which you tread.

You make reference to a picture that was posted by on TB2000 that was addressed to me - be careful of liable and slander.

Be very, very careful.

Lisa Zach

-- LZach (lisa@texasnetworks.com), March 06, 2000.

Lisa, I put your name in quotes up there because I know it wasn't you. I know that the jerk that posted it merely labeled it with your name, and I personally found that one of themost objectionable things that occured at TimeBomb.

I don't have any quarrel with you, my quarrel is with the guy who posted it.

Peace, good lady. I don't wish you any harm.

font size=10>

<

-- Laura (Ladylogic46@aol.com), March 06, 2000.

I wish I had a cyber-eraser.

I also wish I had the ability to go back in time and do things differently. If I could, I would take back all the hurtful things I said to you.

Take care, dear lady.

font size=10>



-- laura (Ladylogic46@aol.com), March 06, 2000.

Lisa, you may want to take a look at libel, too.

-- Normally (Oxsys@aol.com), March 06, 2000.

"all the crap thats gone one here for the last year. (Remember the picture of "Liza Z?")"

I said it was crap, and I don't know what part of that you don't understand.

~*~
-- laura (Ladylogic@.....), March 06, 2000.

Laura,

Thank you for your kind response. I just don't want to go down "that" road again, if you know what I mean. ;o)

I admit I reacted hastily, and I apologize for posting before asking reasonably what you meant by your remark.

I wish you no harm either, I only wish you well.

Take care,

Lisa Zach

-- LZach (lisa@texasnetworks.com), March 06, 2000.

and Normally,

thanks, you are absolutely right, I need a spell checker. Good grief!

-- LZach (lisa@texasnetworks.com), March 06, 2000.

Ahh, youse is bein' such good girls. I'm happy that LL is such a truly big person--in spirit and heart, I mean--not size.

Lisa, you'se nice too, watch that spelling though. (grin)

-- gilda (jess@listbot.com), March 07, 2000.

Good morning, gilda!

Lisa and got in a tussle awhile back, but fortunately, we're both mature women and have been able to work out our differences. We've e-mailed a couple of times since that interaction, and you know what?

She's a nice lady.

So are you.

I have to go eat breakfast now, but I'm going to respond to the "bunker thread" later. See ya there!

#

-- (lady@........), March 07, 2000.

Don't eat too much breakfast, or you might not have enough powder to cover your big fat ass!

-- (the@butt.sisters), March 07, 2000.

I'm 5'4, 120 lbs.

Deal with it.

~*~
-- laura (lady@......), March 07, 2000.

I know, and 60 of the 120 are on your ass. I know, I saw you.

-- (stateopegic@mama.butt), March 07, 2000.

giggle.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 07, 2000.

Heh. And another 50 pounds of it is the fat between her ears. I know, I've talked to her. Seeing a middle-aged woman with a droopy butt is one thing, but talking to one who sounds like she doesn't have two synapses to rub together is about as sexy as Suzanne Summer's brain in Roseanne Barr's body!

-- (what an old@bimbo.dip), March 07, 2000.

LOL!!!!

-- (cellulite@for.brains), March 07, 2000.

lisa,

Do you have something you want to say to me? Or, do you just want to continue looking like a meddlesome twirp.

~*~

-- laura (ladylogic@.......), March 07, 2000.

I'll stick with twerp.

You are far too unstable to mess with, and I've messed with the best of them.

-- lisa (lisa@work.now), March 07, 2000.

No, I think twirp describes you to a "t" (wirp).

Pretty, white, powdered butt

(No, nevermind. You'd enjoy it too much.)

-- laura (ladylogic@........), March 07, 2000.