International I Hate Sports Club

OK everybody:

In light of the recent controversy over a photo shop hatchet job that I had done on the avatar of OMGdudeWhat, and then later, the images being deleted, I would like to propose a compromise.

Here is is original avatar . . . . .

. . . which of course can be seen on his forum posts.

First, before I propose my compromise, for those who have not seen the images before they were deleted, here is a verbal description of said images.

------------------------------
Photo #1

This was an enlarged version or the original avatar, and next to his photo was that rather disturbing image of an ugly (male/female?) with hair tied in braids and a big ugly smile with bad teeth. The original image was in color, and I used my Photo Base 3 application to make a smaller black & white version of the same, and I put it next to OMGdudeWhat's avatar, and saying that it was his high school girlfriend.

------------------------------
Photo # 2

This was a composite of OMGdudeWhat and his ugly "girlfriend" standing in front of a beat up old trailer home out in the woods.

------------------------------
Photo # 3

A black & white photo of our intrepid hero OMGdudeWhat wearing the Jersey Of Shame with the GAY 00 on it and a cheese head on top of his head.
------------------------------


OK, so I had promised that if the board moderators say I must either delete those images, or they delete the images, that I would abide by their decision, and I have, as promised.

Now, only two forum members (I won't mention names) that I know of, were offended by the hatchet job I had done on the avatar of OMGdudeWhat while one forum member posted the following, more or less in my defense.

Agent 47 wrote:

Earl wrote: I've just deleted all the offensive images. That takes care of that.

OMG. SportsSuck.org has just gone down the pathway of censorship, i.e. book burning.

OK, in the light of this development, I have do to be honest.

Yes, I'm a little bit upset that my three photo shop images had to be deleted.

So, I have to ask myself, are we starting to go down the path of censorship?

Now, I understand, there are forum rules against posting pornographic images, or links to pornographic images, or any web sites containing said images.

But my photo shop images are in no way, pornographic. Quite the opposite, actually! The images are a real turn-off!

OK, his is my proposed compromise . . .

Instead of posting the actual images that show up in a forum post, would it be OK to post a link to the image instead?

That way, the image dose not show up in a forum post, but only the link to said image.

This way, the viewer has a choice.

If you think the photo might be offensive, then you have the option of not clicking on the link, and not seeing the image.

But for those who might like to view the image, you have the option of clicking on the link.

And of course, above the link, I would give a brief verbal description of the image, so that you would know what you are about to see, or choose not to see.

OK, does that sound like a reasonable compromise?

If the board moderators still say no, then naturally I will still abide by their decisions, either way.

Please let me know what you think.

OK?

Thank you.

That sounds like quite a good compromise, Fat Man, but the sad thing is that you would have to compromise at all.

The way I see it, you were just injecting a bit of humor around here.

It staggers me that this whole thing is even an issue.

Fat Man wrote:Photo # 3

A black & white photo of our intrepid hero OMGdudeWhat wearing the Jersey Of Shame with the 00 GAY on it and a cheese head on top of his head.

Oh I missed that one! Could you put up a link to that one or something? I'd like to see it. I find your images hilarious!

Agent 47 wrote:That sounds like quite a good compromise, Fat Man, but the sad thing is that you would have to compromise at all.

The way I see it, you were just injecting a bit of humor around here.

It staggers me that this whole thing is even an issue.

Fat Man wrote:Photo # 3

A black & white photo of our intrepid hero OMGdudeWhat wearing the Jersey Of Shame with the 00 GAY on it and a cheese head on top of his head.

Oh I missed that one! Could you put up a link to that one or something? I'd like to see it. I find your images hilarious!

I'll send it to you in a PM, right now!!!

OK???

Thanks for all three of them, Fat Man. Absolute classics. I've just spent the last several minutes kacking myself laughing! Thanks for that!

Agent 47 wrote:Thanks for all three of them, Fat Man. Absolute classics. I've just spent the last several minutes kacking myself laughing! Thanks for that!

You're welcome!

And if anybody else would like to see those images that were deleted, please send me a PM request, and feel free to download and save them to your computer's hard drive.

I'm glad there are some here who appreciate my art work.

Well, I wouldn't really see much of a difference between having a link to the image instead of displaying the image, because the reason why I personally didn't like the images was not because I myself was offended or disturbed by it, but because I believed it wasn't right to defame the image of a person. Incidentally, I have no problem with you having an opinion against that person, as even I didn't really like OMGdudeWhat that much. But people could just as easily find the image on this public forum and see that picture, and associate it with this site. Even if you were to state that the image shouldn't be associated with this site, it would could still be accessed through this public forum, therefore there still would be an association with this site. Therefore if you were going to post the link to the image, in my opinion that wouldn't really be a compromise and if you were to do that you might as well just post the actual image in the forum. However, if you are going to PM it to anyone who requests it, it is none of my business and I'm not going to tell you not to do it. Then there's no association with this forum and the images, and any repercussions (any kind of repercussion, whether they are moral or anything else) are your responsibility as well as the person who requested the image's responsibility, but not mine. That's just my opinion however and the decision on this controversy is not mine.

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote:Well, I wouldn't really see much of a difference between having a link to the image instead of displaying the image, because the reason why I personally didn't like the images was not because I myself was offended or disturbed by it, but because I believed it wasn't right to defame the image of a person. Incidentally, I have no problem with you having an opinion against that person, as even I didn't really like OMGdudeWhat that much. But people could just as easily find the image on this public forum and see that picture, and associate it with this site. Even if you were to state that the image shouldn't be associated with this site, it would could still be accessed through this public forum, therefore there still would be an association with this site. Therefore if you were going to post the link to the image, in my opinion that wouldn't really be a compromise and if you were to do that you might as well just post the actual image in the forum. However, if you are going to PM it to anyone who requests it, it is none of my business and I'm not going to tell you not to do it. Then there's no association with this forum and the images, and any repercussions (any kind of repercussion, whether they are moral or anything else) are your responsibility as well as the person who requested the image's responsibility, but not mine. That's just my opinion however and the decision on this controversy is not mine.

Thanks for your opinion.

Yes, you do make a valid point.

Of course, people would have the option to click on the link, or not click on the link.

Anyway, if the board moderators still say no, that I can't even post a link to the images, then I will still abide by their decision.

OK?

In the meantime, lets see what the board moderators decide.

HugeFanOfBadReligion wrote:Well, I wouldn't really see much of a difference between having a link to the image instead of displaying the image, because the reason why I personally didn't like the images was not because I myself was offended or disturbed by it, but because I believed it wasn't right to defame the image of a person.

Yeah, that's basically my view as well.

Earl has come to his decision, though, so, just as Fat Man promised he would do, I plan to abide by that moderator decision. I just hope Earl will stick to his guns from this point on, and abide by his most recent decision, despite what I'm going to say next.

.
.
.

Fact is, I also plan to abide by my own original move to reduce my rate of posting to next to nothing. I have had a lot of fun with Lewis's games threads over the last few weeks, but I feel that if I participated freely in those threads from now on I would be tacitly endorsing what Fat Man now does in other sections of the site. And I don't feel comfortable doing that.

So I'm not "going", but I won't pretend that I like what Fat Man gets away with here, either, or even that I find it acceptable, because I don't.

Mostly I'll be around to hear people's reports of good news in their own lives. To take on anyone at chess who fancies a game. That sort of thing.

(I may also stick around to warn jocks and fans about the unfair consequences they will meet with if they foolishly decide to "exercise their right to free speech".)

Character assassination is character assassination. I see no clear moral distinction between the soft-core version Fat Man so relishes indulging in at this site and the hard-core version, elsewhere on the Internet, that bothers him so much.

For me, what differentiates innocent Internet fun from online harassment and abuse, is that in the former case fun takes place entirely on the Internet, in a world divorced from real-life consequences, whereas in the latter case, the abuse directly affects how the victim is perceived by his friends, his enemies and his other real-world acquaintances. In the first case, the butt of a joke can leave it all behind and return to his real life; in the second case, he cannot.

Au revoir, mes amis,
RF

There are so many thoughts racing through my mind that I almost don't know where to begin.

Yes, recovering_fan, I will stick by my decision to accept Fat Man's compromise, even though you may disapprove. I've appreciated your posts greatly. You're obviously an intelligent guy, and you uphold ethical principles as well. When you decline to post in protest, you deprive the forum (which, granted, undoubtedly is not your intent). You make an invaluable contribution.

I feel frustrated at this point. I feel the need to make my position clear.

First, this website is not my website -- anymore than it's Fat Man's website or HugeFan's website or i_like_1981's website, etc. It's our website. This means that I have to make certain allowances for each member. For example, if this were my website, I would insist upon strict civility, since I have learned from my own online experience (beginning in the spring of 2009) that posting in a combative spirit (especially in one's first post) does not work. What happens in such a situation is that any poster whose point of view is not your own becomes self-defensive and may retaliate in a verbally nasty way. Conflict may be generated needlessly. Also, the opportunity to make points and possibly change someone's mind is lost.

I don't mean to toot my own horn; but as a moderator in this forum, I've bent over backwards to be fair to sports fans and "jocks." I don't believe in hating people. I refuse to dump on a guy simply because he participates in a sport. In January of last year, I was favorably received at Andy's website (which, incidentally, is not the webpage i_like_1981 has referenced just recently) because I let the members who were participating in that particular thread know that while I didn't put athletes on a pedestal (as do many sports fans, who should know better), I respected them as human beings and gave them credit for being good at doing something that requires effort and self-discipline (which, of course, can be said about many other activities and endeavors as well).

Fat Man does not share my philosophy. What can I do about it? Next to nothing. Again, this is not my website. I did not create this website. Therefore, I don't have the right to make this website my own. I have to make certain allowances for other members. Does that mean I endorse all of their comments? No, it doesn't. My obligation as a moderator of this forum is to follow the Forum Rules, which Skul has posted for all of us to read. Do the Forum Rules say to turn the other cheek when you've been flamed by a sports fan? No, the rules say we can flame back -- which, in my opinion, is precisely what Fat Man did when he attached those images. It's all a matter of degree. Are these the worst images that Fat Man has ever posted? No, not by a long shot. Is the way Fat Man responded the way that I would have responded? Absolutely not. But this forum, after all, is in part a ranting board.

Your point about karma is well taken. Fat Man does seem to be a lightning rod, figurately speaking. But this website is not a website with a Christian (a word that is never used as an adjective in the New Testament) orientation, which would square with my own point of view. As a Christian I'm definitely in the minority in this forum. (Before another controversy begins, let me say that I love my unbelieving friends, both online as well as those in real life. Good grief!) What am I supposed to do? Impose my viewpoint upon everyone else? No, I can't do that. If I did, I'd be getting out of line. But if this were my website -- in other words, if I had created it and was the one who set up the rules and saw to it that they were enforced -- then I would be in a rightful position to make demands on the members of my website's forum. Even though Fat Man is a personal friend of mine, he would find that I would take a hard line. For example, the "Jock in a Box" picture would soon find itself gone. And if Fat Man had set up a website of his own, I probably wouldn't be a very good moderator there because I would get out of line as I remained true to my own principles. In fact, to be frank, I would decline an offer to serve as a moderator in any website's forum whose real purpose was to promote the hatred of "jocks," as opposed to merely "hating sports." If the home page of this website had said "Welcome, Jock Haters!" instead of "Welcome, Sports Haters!" I'm not sure that I would have even become a member of this forum.

In my view, compromise is essential to keep a website like this one going. Fat Man should be complimented for his willingness to cooperate. If I don't give him this recognition, then I'm being unfair, indeed.

At the moment as a moderator of this website (well, I seem to be the only one active at this point in time), I'm frustrated. OMG's escapades have caused us to bicker among ourselves. Now we have disunity. He's probably reading this post right now, if he hasn't read it already. He must be enjoying himself.

As a moderator I recognize that I've made mistakes. But as they say, hindsight is 20/20.

Good evening Earl:

Well, I'm beginning to feel that I've been the cause of this recent controversy, like I have stirred up the proverbial hornets nest.

But there is just no pleasing everybody.

My dearly departed mother use to say "If I gave you the world with a fence around it, you would probably complain that you didn't like the color of the fence!" yeah, she had a lot of clever and witty sayings. She was a philosopher. Socrates, eat your heart out!!! And Plato can also pack his Gucci bag is hit the fucking road as well!

If there is an after-life, then my mother is up there kicking their asses all over the cosmos! They're going to be butt-hurt for all eternity!

Now, before I had posted the links to the images, after you gave permission of course, I received a couple of PMs from some forum members requesting attachments to the images I had created.

I won't mention names because PM means Private Message.

But, yeah! They liked the images I created and thought they were hilarious!

It appears that only two members here have openly expressed their outrage over my artwork.

Again, I won't mention names.

Maybe, someday, we'll all look back on this and laugh.

But today is not the day.

Fat Man wrote:Socrates, eat your heart out!!! And Plato can also pack his Gucci bag is hit the fucking road as well!

If there is an after-life, then my mother is up there kicking their asses all over the cosmos! They're going to be butt-hurt for all eternity!

Are your enemies teaching you English now as well as Art and Ethics?

As far as your compromise goes, I think I can support it in light of OMGdudeWhat's recent comments.

I would prefer not to actually have to look at those pictures, however.

--RF

recovering_fan wrote:

Fat Man wrote:Socrates, eat your heart out!!! And Plato can also pack his Gucci bag is hit the fucking road as well!

If there is an after-life, then my mother is up there kicking their asses all over the cosmos! They're going to be butt-hurt for all eternity!

Are your enemies teaching you English now as well as Art and Ethics?

As far as your compromise goes, I think I can support it in light of OMGdudeWhat's recent comments.

I would prefer not to actually have to look at those pictures, however.

--RF

My favorite radio talk show host, Phil Hendrie, has also used the term "butt-hurt" a few times.

http://www.philhendrieshow.com/

So, it's not just a term used over at Encyclopedia Dramatica or at 4chan.

Lots of people say "butt-hurt"! OK???

Fat Man wrote: Lots of people say "butt-hurt"! OK???

Oh. I'd never really heard of it before. Sorry.

recovering_fan wrote:

Fat Man wrote: Lots of people say "butt-hurt"! OK???

Oh. I'd never really heard of it before. Sorry.

That's OK!

All is forgiven!