Was my thread deleted?

Laughing at oneself is therapy, as is laughing with others. Laughing at others is usually schadenfreude.

Or to paraphrase Mark Twain: "To play nice is noble. To advise others to play nice is nobler still, and a lot less trouble". 

When I was a teenager I chaffed at the rules I was "forced" to live under, and couldn't wait until I had my own roof and own rules. Now that I'm older and have that roof complete with teenagers of my own I realize what a liberal household I lived in! Funny how we tend to grow into our own parents.

However, we know there are rules here, it is up to us to live within those rules, not break them. We are guests, and should act accordingly. 

I thought your comments witty and pithy!

cthulhu77 wrote:

Hey look, I am a garage shop modeler, and I want to start making more photoetch.  Uh oh, who is going to call me on it? Jeez, I just wanted to create some pasties!  Little floral ones...or we could go Wendy O Williams on ya, and use tape.

 As I mentioned offline to Gam, if those pasties were in the shape of a meatball, swastika, or red star, I think the objections would die away completely.

 As for sarcasm, I'm not sure parroting counts as such.  I do find it a tad disturbing that my rather mild (IMO) comments would be reacted to at all negatively.  Are we such an emotionally fragile lot that laughing at oneself is verbotten?  Are the "play nice" warnings needed or neurotic?

 OK, back into sleep mode for a couple years...

Here here, I agree completely. The "bury the head in the sand" approach to history, and related revisionist movement, is living in fantasy land pure and simple.

BTW,

I understand obeying the forum rules, but anyone who gets bent out of shape about a resin animation figure and the fantasy human anatomy depicted, has been living under a rock for the last 30 years, let alone active on the Internet for more than a few minutes!

I do believe the Confederate Naval Jack was banned on the Kalmbach owned Scale Auto Magazine forums.

Yes it was.

notlezah (A moderator for this fine site) wrote regarding the General Lee: "I understand where you are coming from, However, It is the Admin's decision that the Confederate Flag will not be displayed here, for any reason, I left the links for the pixs,
I don't know if that's acceptable or not, if you want to replace them with different shots, go for it...just no flag...Sorry."

This leads me to ask the question, Why are such symbols of hate like the SS runes and Nazi flags permitted? I do believe the Third Reich killed alot more people than the American southern states with an OBVIOUS racial motive.

Boobs: No go.

CSA flags and regalia: No go.

Nazi and SS related items: OK!

WHY?

FYI: Not trying to be a Richard here or anything but it seems a bit hipocritical (sp?).

SST

Bgrigg wrote:

As much as I enjoyed participating I think we have reached the point of and should consider ceasing and desisting before the gets here!

 

Now THOSE are emoticons.

As much as I enjoyed participating I think we have reached the point of and should consider ceasing and desisting before the gets here! 

MarkW wrote:

PatlaborUnit1 wrote: Here is what I really think this honestly boils down to.  FSM is not and has not in the past been ( I am a longtime subscriber with issues giong back to #1) an anime-freindly place. I remember reading in the readers comments section years ago after the first gundam wing buildup /detail article appeared (April 2000?) someone wrote that there was no place for this in FSM.  Concur.  As the author of that particular FSM article, I still can vividly recall the exchange with the editors to get it published.  They never supported the proposed follow up--showing how a Gundam "toy" could be built up as a real model.  The early to mid '90s were also a time where some Trek kits got love, but that time (several editors ago) is apparently gone. I have learned some fascinating things: 1) Women who dress or act in a sexual manner must be whores.  There is no other possible explanation.  This includes your wife, or girlfriend, or (gasp daughter) when they put on that slinky nightie for the sole viewing pleasure their boyfriend/husband on Valentine's Day.  This smutty model clearly is strutting down 5th avenue, looking for a good time in a bad way.  This figure couldn't possibly be representing a female feeling sexy for her one guy.  Oh, no.  She's whorish. 2)  Teenage hormonal boys would much rather drool over a hunk of plastic on the web than the ten gajillion free porno sites anyone can Google.  Glad I know that--I have two boys, and must protect them from plastic smut. 3)  If we cover nipples, the terrorists win. 4)  Anime nudity is bad, but cartoon nudity on a B-17 nose is historical.  Big picture of boobies bad, small picture OK. 5)  Not understanding the significance of a noose, or being sensitive to the community most often found at the end of one, is OK if you are white. Did I miss anything?

 

As much as I agree with most of those points, and got a laugh out of it, Aaron Skinner did respectfully request we refrain from using sarcasm to avoid the beginings of a flame war.....Not trying to play forum police here, just hoping this topic doesn't steer in the wrong direction...

Hey look, I am a garage shop modeler, and I want to start making more photoetch.  Uh oh, who is going to call me on it? Jeez, I just wanted to create some pasties!  Little floral ones...or we could go Wendy O Williams on ya, and use tape.

Nicely put Mark. 

PatlaborUnit1 wrote:

Here is what I really think this honestly boils down to.  FSM is not and has not in the past been ( I am a longtime subscriber with issues giong back to #1) an anime-freindly place. I remember reading in the readers comments section years ago after the first gundam wing buildup /detail article appeared (April 2000?) someone wrote that there was no place for this in FSM.

Concur.  As the author of that particular FSM article, I still can vividly recall the exchange with the editors to get it published.  They never supported the proposed follow up--showing how a Gundam "toy" could be built up as a real model.  The early to mid '90s were also a time where some Trek kits got love, but that time (several editors ago) is apparently gone.

I have learned some fascinating things:

1) Women who dress or act in a sexual manner must be whores.  There is no other possible explanation.  This includes your wife, or girlfriend, or (gasp daughter) when they put on that slinky nightie for the sole viewing pleasure their boyfriend/husband on Valentine's Day.  This smutty model clearly is strutting down 5th avenue, looking for a good time in a bad way.  This figure couldn't possibly be representing a female feeling sexy for her one guy.  Oh, no.  She's whorish.

2)  Teenage hormonal boys would much rather drool over a hunk of plastic on the web than the ten gajillion free porno sites anyone can Google.  Glad I know that--I have two boys, and must protect them from plastic smut.

3)  If we cover nipples, the terrorists win.

4)  Anime nudity is bad, but cartoon nudity on a B-17 nose is historical.  Big picture of boobies bad, small picture OK.

5)  Not understanding the significance of a noose, or being sensitive to the community most often found at the end of one, is OK if you are white.

Did I miss anything? 

 

KirkTrekModeler wrote:

OMG, I can't believe where this thread has gone, over nipples! It's insane! WTF? Pragmatic response. Nudity is against the rules. Why is that a problem? You agree to the standards when you agree to sign on and post. Each community sets its own standards, you agreed to bide by those standards. No nudity? What's the problem? Jesus people..... it's a model! This is nuts! Where do some of you people come from? My God! You're going nuts over so called social/political issues over a freakin model! Wow! I'm continually astounded by the intellectual community.

We all agree that FSM has nudity rules, that has already been established. 

This thread originally started out as a rant, but wound up stimulating some very interesting civil discussion, for the most part.  There is only one person that I see that is going nuts over a freakin' model.  If you don't wish to participate in an intellectual discussion, feel free to "leave the room". 

Now, please let us get back to the discussion.  Thanks.

 

KirkTrekModeler wrote:

OMG, I can't believe where this thread has gone, over nipples! It's insane! WTF? .... it's a model! This is nuts! Where do some of you people come from? My God! You're going nuts over so called social/political issues over a freakin model! Wow! I'm continually astounded by the intellectual community.

This is one of the few discussions that goes beyond was zimmerit applied in the field tht has happened here in a long time. I don't see people going nuts, just exchanging ideas the way rela life flesh and blood people do.

Yes, nudity is against the rules here. No problem with that from this corner, but please, KTM, if you don't want to read any more of this, don't. Let those of us who want to talk to each other do so as long as the moderators allow.

As to where we come from, it appears all over the social spectrum and we're getting along just fine.

ajlafleche wrote:

gamerabaenre wrote:  we must protect the children.  Children? This is a bugaboo of mine...protect the children from what exactly? The sight of an exposed breast? Best keep them out of the Louvre and other museums. Better keep them out of Europe, too. South Beach, as well. I guess I don't know what damage is supposed to happen. I can remember, way, way back in my childhood, I was in a store with my grandmother and opened a magazine up. Well, it was an adult magazine and a secretary was taking dictation from her boss while topless. My only thought was that this was certainly quite weird. Then I put it down and wlaked back to my grandmother. This was probably 1956 or 57, maybe earlier. I wasn't harmed. At 58, I think I've turned out pretty alright. Been married to the same woman over 35 years. Spent most of my adult life working with people with retardation.

 

Good point.  I myself am well below the "30-year old adult male" stereotype placed, and am offended in no way by the images.  Since you posted a link, and a warning, anyone viewing the pictures knew full well what they were viewing.  Any kid with internet access viewing your work could find far more "offensive" or "explicit" media elsewhere quite easily.  Like Al pointed out above, it isn't as big of a deal as it is sometimes made into.  The same way many kids my age drink only for the reason that it's illegal and they shouldn't be doing it.  In an art class I'm taking nudity is accepted and normal since it's "allowed" by the teacher, and nobody thinks much of it.  But step out of that class room, and drawing a naked human form is considered tasteless and crude.  Just another opinion to consider...

gamerabaenre wrote:

... I fully enjoy discussions like this....

Thanks for answering to the best of your abilities. And thanks for the friendly, cordial debate.

KirkTrekModeler wrote:

OMG, I can't believe where this thread has gone, over nipples! It's insane! WTF? Pragmatic response. Nudity is against the rules. Why is that a problem? You agree to the standards when you agree to sign on and post. Each community sets its own standards, you agreed to bide by those standards. No nudity? What's the problem? Jesus people..... it's a model! This is nuts! Where do some of you people come from? My God! You're going nuts over so called social/political issues over a freakin model! Wow! I'm continually astounded by the intellectual community.

 

  I'm equally astounded by some of the lines I have read here, including the above. LOL.

  Hey, how about a nude Hitler being hung by black men in Alabama, and we will all call it good?

OMG, I can't believe where this thread has gone, over nipples! It's insane! WTF?

Pragmatic response. Nudity is against the rules. Why is that a problem? You agree to the standards when you agree to sign on and post. Each community sets its own standards, you agreed to bide by those standards. No nudity? What's the problem?

Jesus people..... it's a model! This is nuts! Where do some of you people come from? My God! You're going nuts over so called social/political issues over a freakin model!

Wow! I'm continually astounded by the intellectual community. 

gamerabaenre wrote:

we must protect the children.  Children?

This is a bugaboo of mine...protect the children from what exactly? The sight of an exposed breast? Best keep them out of the Louvre and other museums. Better keep them out of Europe, too. South Beach, as well. I guess I don't know what damage is supposed to happen. I can remember, way, way back in my childhood, I was in a store with my grandmother and opened a magazine up. Well, it was an adult magazine and a secretary was taking dictation from her boss while topless. My only thought was that this was certainly quite weird. Then I put it down and wlaked back to my grandmother. This was probably 1956 or 57, maybe earlier. I wasn't harmed. At 58, I think I've turned out pretty alright. Been married to the same woman over 35 years. Spent most of my adult life working with people with retardation.

I believe the issue was also the size of the depiction.  As when I pointed out the other thread that posted nudity, the reply was that the image was smaller.  Odd that the context does not change, but a difference in footprint is the deciding factor.

But you know, the nose art is real art, painted on a machine of destruction.  No questions about moral issues, of family friendly vaules when such is posted.  But an actual figure that exposes less, oh no, where are the blinders, we must protect the children.  Children?

gamerabaenre wrote:

Which further impresses on my belief that the majority of posters and lurkers are in fact adults not children.

It's not the majority that needs to be protected, but the minority! Rules are not made for the benefit of the many, but for the protection of the few.

DURR wrote:

first   i saw it   nice work second  i have a question for you all i have seen aircraft posted here  with nose art that show some awesome melons   what is the diff between the two   I AM NOT TAKING EITHER SIDE HERE  JUST A NEUTRAL QUESTION

There is a great movie line I will semi quote here:

" We train young men to drop fire on people... but their commanders, won't allow them to write on their aeroplanes, because, 'it's obscene' "

Either side of this argument can find the other's obscene and hypocritcal. But it basicly comes down to our own personal perceptions and standards. These vary by location, era, and society.

Isn't this one of the things Bin Laden despises about the west? Our freedom to see and discuss these things? 

OK, let me ask you two questions, then. Is it morally right to portray women as cheap bimbo whores?

I honestly do not feel that the portrayal is in any means degrading, it is a fantasy piece.  It is not reflection of any real person.  So therein lies my problem to answer the question accurately.  I do not care how women portray themselves, or how men percieve how women portray themselves.  I have my opinions on what I like and dislike, but I would never force my own moral standards upon another.  If you believe that posting the figure is morally wrong, well good for you.  I do not belive it was morally wrong to post up a model figure in a model building forum.  I built the figure because I liked it, however, I do not believe it is an accurate representation of how I treat women - again, it's not real, just plastic.

Is it then also morally right to post its photos to a forum where kids often go?"

  In all honestly, I do not believe that the majority of the posters and lurkers here are children.  Reading the language posted in many threads, the intelligent responses, I firmly believe that the majority of the site is visited by adult males.  So bringing in morality into the action of posting is moot.  Now, if this was a website that discusses shows on Nickelodeon, then yes, I believe I would be morally wrong in posting there.  This is after all a model building forum - we are afforded a bit of context.

 I fully enjoy discussions like this.  And aside from my own sarcasm, never has the thought to insult another because their belief system is different from mine, surfaced.  This is all very entertaining to me, as it should be for most readers who enjoy the snips sarcasm - we are adults here, we can discussing topics without resorting to insults and flames.  Which further impresses on my belief that the majority of posters and lurkers are in fact adults not children.

ajlafleche wrote:

Cosmic J wrote: It's the great dichotomy of living in America. The very first amendment to our Constitution guarantees us freedom of speech, but speech isn't free... "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." The first amendment applies to "congress,' i.e., the govenrment, not establishing any laws abridging free speech. It DOES NOT apply to individuals putting limits on expressions they will tolerate or accept. It doesn't say nobody can set limits on what you can say in their presence, their businesses, their homes. The people at Kalmbach set up this forum and established rules which we agreed to when we registered. It's their house, we have to abide by their rules. They've taken a relatively conservative stance on nudity, vulgarity, and what might be viewed as offensive material, as well as discouraging non-modeling discussions which is more problematic to me. That what their limit is far below my level of being offended is okay. I can live with that. You have to decide which hill you'll bleed on, and quite frankly, this one hill isn't worth a plug nickel.

I started out a post with the same quote and POV, but was distracted by lunch. Now I've come back and found you beat me to the punch!

I was also going to point out that the Framers declared Congress, and not the State, as making no laws abridging the freedom of speech. Your State, Country and Municipal governments are not required under the Constitution to follow the First Amendment! Most do, of course, or they would end up having VERY short terms of office.

Changing focus, Aaron is completely right in that pointing out that while the discussion is interesting, it is important to keep it civil. Ad Hominem attacks have no place in polite discussions.

Airing of PRIVATE messages in public forums is IMHO in poor taste, and enhances neither party. Neither do snide remarks.

As for self policing the forums, that is what responsible people do. When I see someone go over the top in a forum, I try to head them off, and I do so politely at first. Just as I would prevent a thief from stealing from my neighbor, or even a stranger. That might be a friendly reminder in the forum, or via PM. This is a forum, not a free-for-all. 

Have you ever visited Harajuku Tokyo on a Sunday?  The cosplay is incredible.

I find it interesting that labels such as "whore-ish" are being applied to the figure.  I see no acts going on.  I see no solicitation taking place.  Human beings are sexual beings, plain and simple.  You can be in denial about it all you want.  It's all about context, and I think one or two individuals are reading the wrong context into the posting of the figure and adding THEIR prejudices and moralistic judgements.  

Most Europeans are much more relaxed about nudity than us Americans.  Is it "whore-ish" to go topless at a beach in the Mediterranean?  Are European women "whore-ish"?  I think not.......

Thanks for allowing us to debate the topic Aaron.  I give it about another 20 minutes before it spirals into the abyss of threads that will need to be locked down.   

If there was a body swingin' from the noose, then it WOULD be in bad taste. But it's a man, standing next to an empty noose.

I have no problems with a noose.  But put one up in your neighborhood around holloween, and see if you get complaints.  This past hallowween there were complaints about what the noose represents.  This is a complete farce.  This goes back to how political correctness has completely nerfed our society as a whole.

Context is everything. One of the most powerful and moving pieces of modeling toured the figure circuit in late 2006 into 2007, Bob Tavis' Strange Fruit which depicted a lynching. And, yes, there was a body swinging from the noose.  There was also the grieving family and the Klansmen and their police allies.

Yes, there is a very dark subtext to the noose image. Since most of us in the hobby are white, based on my observation at 30 years of contests and club participation, we don't see it as offensive and really have no cultural context to see a noose as offensive. . For the most part we also aren't offended by SS runes, swastikas and other Nazi symbolism. I suspect there are a lot of folks who have a very different take on these symbols, however.

Again, context for the Clint figure, it refers clearly back to a particular movie, not a lynching in the political sense. Replace Clint with a smiling robed man holding his hood, and you WOULD have a very offensive piece of work.

Well, I just think FSM needs a "teats for tats" section.

 

 

gamerabaenre wrote:

That sir is an opinion.  I never thought of it as a degrading figure, nor have the several womeon at a local contest felt embarrased or angered over it.  ..

Well of couse they wouldn't be embarassed... they're participants in the hobby! That's like asking bees if they find honey offensive. I asked you to poll average women at random and see what they think.

gamerabaenre wrote:

You are mistaking something made in the fantasy realm for something in reality.  There's a distinction between the two.  One isn't real, while the other is.  And again, it is your opinion that the depiction is "degrading".

So is it your opinion that a portrayal of a woman acting whore-ish is, what? Edifying? A positive step towards respect for the opposite gender? Or what?

So you're just going to avoid the "daughter" question. Understandable. It's an uncomfortable question. I'll ask again: Would you be cool with showing off a figurine of your daughter, wearing butt-floss, flashing her ta-ta's?


"OK, let me ask you two questions, then. Is it morally right to portray women as cheap bimbo whores? Is it then also morally right to post its photos to a forum where kids often go?"

gamerabaenre wrote:

Again, this is fantasy, animation, read: not real.  Yet you continue to put the realistic labels of degradation.

Instead of avoiding, can you just please answer the above two questions? I'd really like to know your thoughts on these two questions.

gamerabaenre wrote:

Again, this is my own opinion, you're not going to change it, just as I'm not going to change your opinion.

I had no notion that I'd change anyone's opinion. I am only pursuing this to better understand the mind of one who holds your position. Thank you for bearing with me thusfar.  Really. Thanks for keeping it civil.

Gentlemen,

This is a great discussion about modeling and the philosophy of certain subject matter. But, in the interests of civility, let's keep it, uh, civil. Refrain from sarcasm and snide remarks when answering another's post, and in the end, respect each other's opinions as if it were your own.

Cheers,

first   i saw it   nice work

second  i have a question for you all

i have seen aircraft posted here  with nose art that show some awesome melons  

what is the diff between the two

 

I AM NOT TAKING EITHER SIDE HERE  JUST A NEUTRAL QUESTION

 

 

 

tetsujin wrote:

...There is no man in the image making the woman his playtoy, that's an interpretation you provided yourself.

I think you missed it. The man is not in the image. The man is the observer of the image. 

tetsujin wrote:

... and many of these men wouldn't want to think of their daughters in sexual situations any more than the daughter would want to envision the father in a sexual situation.

Yup. And that's why I asked the builder to place himself in the "hot seat", so to speak. If he knew the woman that was being degraded, he might have a different opinion. So it's not "flawed".

tetsujin wrote:

... regardless of whether we choose to see them as healthy realities of our state of living, or reject them as sinful or shameful.

Fine, I'll ask you the same question. Is it healthy to portray women in degrading or compromising situations? Or, only if it's fantasy women you don't know? How about YOUR daughter? Would YOU make a statuette of your daughter like we saw and proudly show it off to everyone? Be truthful with your reply.

tetsujin wrote:

A bust of Hitler teaches no more about history than the nudie figure does. At best it serves as a reference..

You cannot deny that the Hitler bust has historical context, and my point was that it DOES serve as a reference. What reference does the nudie flasher convey, may I ask?