Lunicks / Sal

[Nodd]

IronBat, it looked more like you were slagging off my judgement without knowing all the facts. That's more what I meant.


+ for a bit of LOL, this message made me chuckle a bit  (after the storm):

Remove that fucked up shit that saladin posted with the cat everywhere it's been put. Now.

It's disgusting and only a sick fuck can enjoy something like that.
I do NOT want to see any of that crap anymore.

I'd rather stare at your toilet pic for an hour.

It's that last line... classic 

[Hudders]

It's not a witch-hunt.

I just thought I'd try and do the right thing by involving the community in the overall decision.

I'm not saying you're running a witch-hunt and I do think you did the right thing to ask others about it rather than make a decision that might raise heckles amongst the other members; but, because some people didn't see the orginal Morning Glory sig, they're making flawed assumptions about it and putting Sal in an ever worsening light.

All I know is that if someone finds extreme animal torture funny, I don't want anything to do with them.

I don't think he finds it funny, I think he misjudged the situation somewhat and escalated to a foolish position. I hope that he regrets doing it, it wouldn't surprise me if he did.

I was just asking for even handedness.

Bravo. It's not just Saladin who has been inappropriate at times, almost all of us have been guilty of it at some point. This is why it's a witch-hunt, because of the blinkered focus on him and not the state of behaviour in general.

[Yali]

I say we just blame Hudders for everything.. You know, so we have a hunt after all.. That way everyone is happy!

*starts handing out torches and pitchforks*

[XxRockFairyxX]

Good decision. As something I saw as basically the first thing in the morning, my appetite for breakfast was immediately gone.

I don't think a month is too harsh. On quite a large percentage of forums throughout the internet, it would have resulted in a perma-ban. This also taking into consideration that Sally hasn't exactly got a clean past when it comes to foruming.

I understand that it is a difficult decision to make, especially because it concerns a longtime forum member. However, posting pictures like that is definately not acceptable.

Personally, I feel he has crossed a line that I'll never forgive him for.

So, in short. He's already had some warnings in the past about rude/offensive behaviour. Today shows that he hasn't learnt anything from it. I think we could go on happily without him.

EDIT:
I just keep seeing that picture in my head over and over again..
Imagining it could be one of my cats.... Seriously... Don't ever let him back on the forums....please...

I agree with Yali 100%, and echo everything she has said.

So IronBat, You'd have preferred me to leave his signature of having an adult masturbating over a child?

Well... that's reason two for not letting him come back..
Didn't get that part, but I think it's rather nice for people to know that he's made two disturbing unsuitable sigs in a short time..

As for this, just more evidence to the effect that Saladin has real problems.

I think the root issue here is WHY did he post this stuff? Purely to upset and sicken everybody as much as possible.

Extreme, graphic, animal torture and the recently-come-to-light cartoon about paedophilia. Can anyone think of anything much worse? ? ?

As a sig, visible everytime he posts! In order to cause maximum offence?

Why do we need someone like that on this forum? I for one am seriously concerned about his state of mind.

[Hudders]

the recently-come-to-light cartoon about paedophilia.

If you didn't see the image, please don't judge it. I agree that it was innapropriate but it's just not as graphic as people who didn't see it are making it out to be and it lays the groundwork for the type of Daily Mail-esque over-reactions which result in people raiding Paediatricians' offices.

Please stick to decrying the animal-torture pics since we can all agree that they were inappropriate and should never have been posted, no matter how clearly faked, (I say clearly-faked but it's doubtful that anyone looked at them long enough to judge that... except me... what the hell is wrong with me?).

But anyway. Yes. Animal torture = wrong, pictures of animal torture (or any torture come to think of it) = not appropriate on the forum.

In a way I think it would have been more forgivable if he'd only posted in one place but adding it to his sig wasn't a fantastic way to go.

[XxRockFairyxX]

I'm glad I didn't see it, the content speaks for itself Hudders. Child abuse just isn't funny, in any context. FULL STOP. And if any among us do find it amusing, then I suggest they seek help.

And the cat torture images are more than enough in my opinion.

There is no excuse for what he did in my opinion.

[Nodd]

yeah, ok, lets leave the morning glory sig out of this. It was used more in disgust as to why IronBat preferred paedophilia pictures over a cute cat called Charlie. lol. It was really just a statement to point out my judgement wasn't as flawed as he thought. But anyway..

This is just about the cat picture(s).

It was sick, and even screwed me up (and I can cope with a lot of stuff). Everytime I blink I can see the image. It's horrible. I think what made it worse was the fact it was posted as a reply to a picture of Yali's cat. That definately made it even more unapropriately offensive.

[Yali]

I don't think it's people bashing over an image they didn't see Hudders.

What I think of the 'fuss' over the paedophile stuff is that it clearly represents Sally's state of mind.

Someone who finds it funny to place things that offend people (whether it's highly offensive or mildly, or 'just a cartoon') in their signatures is someone who needs help. In many many ways.

Oh and hudders, I don't buy the 'it's just a cartoon.. don't judge it before you've seen it'.

Talk to the muslims and the mohammed cartoons.

[Yali]

I agree with Yali 100%, and echo everything she has said.

*falls off chair in shock*

[Nodd]

I find sick stuff funny, like this comic strip. I think it depends on the graphic-ness, detail, realism, and context. It's a hard thing to censor, almost impossible, but we do need to try and put down some boundaries I feel.

Actual extreme graphic violence to a person or animal has to be way beyond "the line". I mean, not even extreme horror films are that bad. I think "realism" is a big factor.

I agree that those cat images suggest a "state of mind" rather than a "sense of humor".

[Hudders]

I don't think it's people bashing over an image they didn't see Hudders.

What I think of the 'fuss' over the paedophile stuff is that it clearly represents Sally's state of mind.

Someone who finds it funny to place things that offend people (whether it's highly offensive or mildly, or 'just a cartoon') in their signatures is someone who needs help. In many many ways.

Oh and hudders, I don't buy the 'it's just a cartoon.. don't judge it before you've seen it'.

Morning Glory has been discussed in these forums, at length, before. There wasn't that kind of reaction earlier and a lot of people found it funny, if a little repetitive. If I was reading these comments in a thread about Morning Glory itself, I'd have no problem. As it is, you're making moutains out of mole-hills discussing an image you haven't even seen and using it to damn someone for a separate crime.

Talk to the muslims and the mohammed cartoons.

Uhh... so you don't think their reaction was unjustified?? You surprise me.

[Yali]

I don't think it's people bashing over an image they didn't see Hudders.

What I think of the 'fuss' over the paedophile stuff is that it clearly represents Sally's state of mind.

Someone who finds it funny to place things that offend people (whether it's highly offensive or mildly, or 'just a cartoon') in their signatures is someone who needs help. In many many ways.

Oh and hudders, I don't buy the 'it's just a cartoon.. don't judge it before you've seen it'.

Morning Glory has been discussed in these forums, at length, before. There wasn't that kind of reaction earlier and a lot of people found it funny, if a little repetitive. If I was reading these comments in a thread about Morning Glory itself, I'd have no problem. As it is, you're making moutains out of mole-hills discussing an image you haven't even seen and using it to damn someone for a separate crime.

Talk to the muslims and the mohammed cartoons.

Uhh... so you don't think their reaction was unjustified?? You surprise me.

I meant: People can get offended by cartoons that others might find funny.

The morning glory comics are all good fun when discussed in their own thread. It's not suitable for someone's sig where anyone can see it. If someone has been a sexual abuse victim in the past, they might get offended by it. For them, it IS a mountain.

Therefore it is not suitable to be in a signature.

[Lanzaned]

Fact: I have not seen the cat picture
Fact: I have seen the morning glory sig and posted a comment about it that it forced me to adblock the image.

I gather that most people here are in favour of the ban on Sal/Lunicks. The only issue is now if we want this ban to be prolonged or not I guess. Nodd has already taken the decision to ban him for one month.

Yes Sal/Lunick could post some things that were a bit over the edge before this started. He was sometimes downright rude to people but let's face it, none of us are angels.

As has been stated people can think I-punk is over the edge as well, even though he makes me laugh most of the time. They (Sal and I-punk) have a sense of humor that is not too widely accepted. Yet both have in the past found their place on these boards and have had more than one good exchange with most of the members here.

My only worry is that if the ban is lifted that Sal/Lunicks might be tempted to post an even worse thing just to say "Thanks for lifting the ban and goodbye".

In all honesty, I like the lad, I speak to him on MSN quite often and we talk about a lot of things. And yes I have noticed lately that he seems a bit more anti-social than he was, but I think that can be retraced to his "personal problems". I know how I felt when I was in a similar situation.

Lets also try to keep in mind that he is still quite young as well, and may be searching for the limitations that can be imposed upon him by society in general and this community specifically.

Yes, it was dumb of him to post that image (just saw it and frankly, it's disgusting), I have seen several of these kinds of images in the past and usually thay were fake, but in this case, I don't think it is, I'm just glad I know he didn't take them himself.

It's a double-edged sword. Lift the ban and risk another one of those kinds of expicit images or permaban him and miss the input he had which was okay.

I for one am in favour of a second chance, but seeing as I still regard myself as "sorta new" I can undertand if my opinion isn't sought after. There should be limitations indeed. I'm just glad I don't find myself in the position Nodd is in right now. It's a difficult one.

[Yali]

Fact: I have not seen the cat picture
Fact: I have seen the morning glory sig and posted a comment about it that it forced me to adblock the image.

I gather that most people here are in favour of the ban on Sal/Lunicks. The only issue is now if we want this ban to be prolonged or not I guess. Nodd has already taken the decision to ban him for one month.

Yes Sal/Lunick could post some things that were a bit over the edge before this started. He was sometimes downright rude to people but let's face it, none of us are angels.

As has been stated people can think I-punk is over the edge as well, even though he makes me laugh most of the time. They (Sal and I-punk) have a sense of humor that is not too widely accepted. Yet both have in the past found their place on these boards and have had more than one good exchange with most of the members here.

My only worry is that if the ban is lifted that Sal/Lunicks might be tempted to post an even worse thing just to say "Thanks for lifting the ban and goodbye".

In all honesty, I like the lad, I speak to him on MSN quite often and we talk about a lot of things. And yes I have noticed lately that he seems a bit more anti-social than he was, but I think that can be retraced to his "personal problems". I know how I felt when I was in a similar situation.

Lets also try to keep in mind that he is still quite young as well, and may be searching for the limitations that can be imposed upon him by society in general and this community specifically.

Yes, it was dumb of him to post that image (just saw it and frankly, it's disgusting), I have seen several of these kinds of images in the past and usually thay were fake, but in this case, I don't think it is, I'm just glad I know he didn't take them himself.

It's a double-edged sword. Lift the ban and risk another one of those kinds of expicit images or permaban him and miss the input he had which was okay.

I for one am in favour of a second chance, but seeing as I still regard myself as "sorta new" I can undertand if my opinion isn't sought after. There should be limitations indeed. I'm just glad I don't find myself in the position Nodd is in right now. It's a difficult one.

And so, the wise old man has spoken.
I am proud to have you as my minion! *wipes away a sentimental tear*

[Lanzaned]

And so, the wise old man has spoken.
I am proud to have you as my minion! *wipes away a sentimental tear*

Who you calling old.... 36 isn't old .... *mopes and walks off*