Just say no to "Poo" posting!
Posting "poop" photos is juvenile, no matter what side is doing it. I know it is allowed within the CoH here. I don't mind personally. I would, however, like to volunteer this little reminder to us all, just how foolish feces tossing looks. You can not get upset at that, however. It is a natural reaction to upsetting stimulus, progressives, and conservatives, are just primates, like the rest of us, and have the same inherent psychological impulses as our evolutionary processes have left within us all. It is called the feces toss response. Hence "poop" pictures.
Let us examine the primitive response of a frustrated primate, engaged in the act of the feces toss. Remember they are our closest relative in the animal world. This, regardless of your first reaction, is a sign of intelligence. Not a whole lot of intelligence, but rudimentary intelligence nevertheless
(PhysOrg.com) -- A lot of people who have gone to the zoo have become the targets of feces thrown by apes or monkeys, and left no doubt wondering about the so-called intellectual capacity of a beast that would resort to such foul play. Now however, researchers studying such behavior have come to the conclusion that throwing feces, or any object really, is actually a sign of high ordered behavior. Bill Hopkins of Emory University and his colleagues have been studying the whole process behind throwing and the impact it has on brain development, and have published their results in Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B.
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-11-poop-throwing-chimps-intelligence.html
In the linked video, a chimpanzee is frustrated by its surroundings. Visibly uncomfortable, enclosed, and literally caged within an environment, not of its making. It lacks the intellectual capacity to alter its situation. The chimp resorts to throwing its feces at the object of its frustration, in an attempt to drive off the offending object or the very idea of the object itself.
Tags
Who is online
88 visitors
Just say NO!
Shame works as well as the CoH sometimes.
I hope.
Just say NO!
Ah yes. The famous saying of Nancy Reagan. (I do not see how it applies here at all. Totally out of sync.)
-
Shame works as well as the CoH sometimes.
CoH? What is the CoH? I am aware of the CoC and now the TOS, but what is the CoH?
COH; (NV reference) equals the CoC (NT reference)
Good article Kpr. Hopefully some of will become more evolved, LOL.
Spare us your hypocrisy.
There has NEVER been a policy on this forum preventing anyone from posting "bathroom" photos. It has been done a number of times in the past without them being removed.
We have a member , or two, who not only posted disgusting photos about the Obamas and Hillary Clinton, but also posted disgusting photos about other members.
Why the new rules now?
John, John, John,
Insanity is defined as doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. I watch to see what causes problems and if it conforms to the CoC, I make a call. That is all that happened here. I saw that poop humor was taking the site down the toilet and now I am putting an end to it.
That is not hypocrisy. That is knowing when how to correct a mistake.
There is no rule against "poo" pictures, otherwise you would have removed them before when other members posted them. Doing it today is censorship. You appear to have relented under the objections of some members, something you didnt do before.
There is no rule against "poo" pictures, otherwise you would have removed them before when other members posted them.
I haven't seen them on the site for a very long time. As for rules, there are plenty. They can be seens as spamming an article, inflammation a discussion, offensive images, intentional disruption, off topic, profane, graphic material... should I go on?
You are presenting a list that you have never or hardly ever enforced.
Are you going to tell me that they are not in the CoC? The same CoC that this group has voted on time and time again and even added to?
Maybe the problem was that I was too lenient and this causes some to think they by giving an inch they could take a mile?
Adult discussion needs words, not a pile of pics of politicians with poop on them. Where does someone take a discussion after that?
You were all given a gift on NT; the gift of using pictures. Most discussion sites don't allow it, and I can now see the reason why. It is just another thing to abuse and another thing to have to deal with moderation wise.
Maybe the problem was that I was too lenient and this causes some to think they by giving an inch they could take a mile?
Adult discussion needs words, not a pile of pics of politicians with poop on them. Where does someone take a discussion after that?
I have put up more "words" than anyone in the history of your site, and you know it. I'm the wrong person for you to try and lecture about putting up intelligent content.
Save your new conclusions for someone they might actually apply to.
Oooooo. That was a nasty comment.
That would be something, if those words actually had some meaning.....
I'm amused by the fact that JohnRussell when describing despicable acts refers only to a member who did so to his heroes, and with NO reference to those who do the same to Trump. Am I to guess that John feels it's okay to smear Trump, but not Obama and Hillary?
Buzz, Obama and Hilary HAVE BEEN smeared on this site. That is reality. It doesnt matter what I think or dont think about it.
That wasn't stopped. But now when someone posts a picture of Trump as a poopy head we have to stop it.
ROFL.
Buzz, Obama and Hilary HAVE BEEN smeared on this site. That is reality. It doesnt matter what I think or dont think about it.
And 2 of the 4 pictures I removed today were of Hillary and Obama. I would say that was pretty fair.
And I must ask, if those two pictures (one of Obama and one of Hillary which I posted) had NOT been posted at all, would you have removed the other two? There is no way of knowing for sure, but it does make me wonder what might or might NOT have happened.
We always seek to move forward though. If all we did was live in the past, there would be no progress. That applies to all things. In fact, I daresay that all that smearing you are talking about contributes to the idea that it isn't appropriate in any regard.
We have a member who seeds five articles a day about how horrible and unAmerican and godless liberals and "leftists" are. Five times a day, 365 days a year. And that or a variation of that is all he ever seeds about.
That is a lot more offensive than two photos of trump as a poopy head.
There was censorship on this forum today.
We also had a member who posted five articles a day about how all conservatives are fascists. Where is the correlation between your ability to post articles and your right to post pictures of crap? They aren't the same thing.
We also had a member who posted five articles a day about how all conservatives are fascists.
Really? Who was that?
A member who you already are aware of having participated in plenty of his articles. This isn't about him. It's directly his right to do so. Where is the correlation between that and posting pictures of turds?
I have never seen anyone seed 5 articles a day saying all conservatives are fascists. We can post a list of the other guys titles if you like.
Where is the correlation between that and posting pictures of turds?
I just told you. His seeds are more offensive to me than a picture of trump with poop on his head. I think I could scrape up some people to agree with me too.
You have the option not to participate in his threads.
In contrast, when you are posting shit pics, you literally take the right away from everybody who wanted to participate in that thread. It isn't your thread, and yet people HAVE to enjoy your turd pic if they want to participate. So essentially, you participated in hijacking the article.
Perhaps a logical reason might be to advise the influx of NV refugees that we are attempting to keep NT free from such sewer tactics, and relying on their good intentions for so doing.
John:
The pictures were not removed because they were about Trump. They were removed because one picture led to 4 fucking pictures of SHIT in 4 different posts. Kindergarten was definitely in session in that article. And all the little whiney brats on both sides were flagging comments and slinging poop.
Sometimes, it takes cleaning an article up and talking a ruler to the knuckles of all the participants to get them to grow up.
Bruce, you are one of the biggest offenders of good taste in the history of Newstalkers. Spare me the revisionism.
Tell me you still love me John.
I strongly RESENT the "kindergarden" comment. Please read my comment below, and then BAN me from this site if you feel that you must.
Frankly, I don't care what you resent.
And I'm not going to ban you.
I am sorry to have to point this out, but this comment,,,
Hopefully some of [them] will become more evolved, LOL.
seems to strongly imply that some people here are "not evolved". And by implication that seems like an insult of sorts. That is just my objective observation and nothing more. Take it as you like it.
THIS IS ON TOPIC and IN DIRECT RESPONSE TO THE R.A.'s ACTION in the other article:
I would like to say this much.
I posted 2 of the 4 pictures deleted in the other article as my response to a sanctimonious comment that accused "progressives" of being "primates". And strongly implied that conservatives were more highly evolved than that.
My point was that conservatives where no more highly evolved or above creating and posting poop memes than were anyone else.
Now that sanctimonious comment has been turned into this sanctimonious article which the R.A. is now praising.
I am sorry to point this out, but the R.A. is being MANIPULATED and used to support conservatives against progressives and all others (like me an independent), when such is quite the opposite.
As I said in two of my posts in the other article: "You reap what you sow." The conservatives created memes like the original two posted. I posted 2 conservative memes to prove it. I proved it. Yet the non-conservatives are being scolded, and the conservatives are getting away with their 'holier than thou' bullshit.
Okay, ban me or do whatever, because every single time I have tried to follow the rules here I have been rebuked.
If you have "rules" then the "rules" should be applied fairly to all. I am sorry, but in my short experience here I have seen this to NOT be the case. Conservatives are given far more latitude and allowed more leniency with the so called "rules" than anyone else here. That is nothing but my completely objective viewpoint.
Okay, BAN me now if that's what you want to do.
that accused "progressives" of being "primates".
I said that progressives, like all of us, are primates. We all are you know!
Yes. In the original comment you stated this:
It is a natural reaction to upsetting stimulus, progressives are primates, like the rest of us, and have the same inherent psychological impulses as our evolutionary processes have left within us all. It is called the feces toss response. Hence "poop" pictures.
However, I note that in this current "article" you have AMENDED/EDITED your statement to this:
It is a natural reaction to upsetting stimulus, progressives, and conservatives, are just primates, like the rest of us, and have the same inherent psychological impulses as our evolutionary processes have left within us all. It is called the feces toss response. Hence "poop" pictures.
Why the change from just "progessives" originally, to add "and conservatives" now?
Who are you trying to convince, trick or manipulate?
Why the change from just "progessives" originally, to add "and conservatives" now?
As Bobby Brown said, it's my prerogative.
Also, this is a legitimate attempt to stop feces posting. Use your intellect and "shit" post instead. It is a good exercise for the brain.
I asked you the question.
I did noy ask the widower of Whitney Houston.
Please use your own words to answer the question I asked you.
Why the change from just "progessives" originally, to add "and conservatives" now?
Who are you trying to convince, trick or manipulate?
Thank you.
Do even you bother to read my comments?
this is a legitimate attempt to stop feces posting. Use your intellect and "shit" post instead. It is a good exercise for the brain.
Sorry, but that is NOT a specific answer to the two questions I asked. Please answer the questions or say that you refuse to.
Thank you.
but that is NOT a specific answer to the two questions
Yes, it is.
I specially answered your question. Not my fault you don't comprehend it.
So you refuse to answer the two questions. Very well.
Woosh!
@ Squirrel
"Who are you trying to convince, trick or manipulate?"
That is a totally unfair and resentful comment. I have often rethought my comments after posting them and then amended them accordingly, and never did i, no do I think kpr did, have some ulterior motive for doing so.
To you maybe, but I was NOT asking you was I. Those questions were well thought out and directed to one person in particular, and that was not you.
Thank you.
Please be aware that the motto of this site is "Speak your mind" and I did. kpr has been a friend of mine for many years. We think alike on many issues. When you ask him a question like: "Who are you trying to convince, trick or manipulate?" it is more in the form and language of an interrogation rather than just a question, insinuating by using the words "trick or manipulate" to suggest something improper, and I'm damn well going to speak my mind in that circumstance no matter WHOM you were addressing.
Thank you Buzz.
Comment removed for CoC violation [ph]
Squirrell,
I have no issue with your point, nor am I trying to twist it to mean something that you were trying to point out. I did have an issue with 1 article with 4 poop pics. You could have used your words.. but I think by the point you posted, you had gotten the wrong idea from older members.
Will you please stop suggesting or saying that either Hal or I did anything wrong. It is offensive.
There are no rules about posting pictures of feces on this site. When other people were posting them some time back I asked you if you would remove them and you told me you couldn't because it wasn't against the rules.
There have been no new rules about them between that time and today. You censored these photos today because some people complained about them.
Just admit it.
CoC rule 7 does in fact cover that.
" When other people were posting them some time back I asked you if you would remove them and you told me you couldn't because it wasn't against the rules."
Are you quoting me? I'd like a reminder of what you are actually talking about. I don't recall feces pictures. Also, I've only been back for a couple weeks. When you say "some time ago", when was this?
However, I did post this earlier since I was uncertain if it should be removed or not:
That is a good question. I'm thinking it's a grey area generally speaking, since sometimes what is offensive to people is the opposite ideology. In the case of something more obvious like those pictures, I personally think the flag function is valid, since it could fall under CoC rule 7. Although rule 7 doesn't explicitly mention this specifically, it does state
"Members agree not to upload or post any content anywhere on the site, that is unlawful, harmful, threatening, abusive, harassing, defamatory, libelous, known to be false, or invasive of another's privacy, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable; are prohibited."
"otherwise objectionable" seems to fit with reporting those images, but it would be the moderator's discretion to interpret that rule.
I personally find them objectionable. However, despite that, the first image definitely is on topic. The second not so much, but plays off of the first and so becomes on topic. So, I'm not sure that I would remove them because it is a matter of subjective interpretation of CoC at that point. If there were a lot of requests to do so though, then I think the community would have stated clearly their position on that particular matter and a moderator would also need to factor that into their decision. Especially if it wasn't one sided flagging.
In my opinion anyway.
...and as I mentioned previously in this article, today demonstrated that this wouldn't be acceptable any longer.
By the way, even in the case of the other article: Moderator Dowser specifically said in her comment that the pictures did not violate the rules even though some complained about the first two anti-Trump pictures. It was only when the other two were added that they all became 'objectionable' and warranted removal.
Yes she did and it would have been fine if it had been one pic... but then there was another and another and another until it was absolutely gross to look at. That was unexpected and I am sure knowing Dowser, not what she was endorsing. Her point was that the flagging of discussion about political people are not CoC violations ( and by extension, neither was Hal's singular picture). It was the trend of gross poop pics that was hard to miss but I do understand how and why it happened.
You are absolutely correct. It was after the other two pictures were posted that it became objectionable. Because at that point, debate had ceased. And the article was about to become a picture gallery of shit.
The Irony? The first two pics were about Trump. The second two pics were About Hillary and Obama. And you folks are gonna argue that this was censorship? The Trump pics got more air time than the other two.
Every time I open NT I see an avatar that is clearly attempting to deceive the eye into thinking it is an exceptionally explicit porn shot. That avatar replaced on that was clearly telling the observer 'fuck you'. You are the last person on this forum who should have a say in what is considered objectionable. After your mod history, Bruce, it is bizarre that you should be reconsidered as a mod.
It's time to move on. I had a mod tell me that he and others would appreciate if I didn't post. What kind of role modeling is that?
NT is only welcoming to conservatrolls anymore.
only welcoming to conserva trolls
Four thousand-year-old naked biker dude with a bedroll, giant f--ing blunt to share during the ride to the gas station so he can get his front tire fixed.Taranis or Jupiter with wheel.
Conservatrolling at its finest! I feel more welcome now. No, really I do.
Conserving history and tradition , altering it somewhat for modern times.
The Archeological Evidence:
There are 7 alters to Taranis extant, all bearing inscriptions in Latin or Greek. These are in Chester in Britain; Bockingen and Godramstein in Germany; Orgon, Thauron and Tours in France and Scardona in Yugoslavia, throughout the Celtic world.
The Symbolic or Imaginary Evidence:
Many others have equated Celtic images with Taranis on the basis of symbols (e.g., the solar wheel) or from conflations of the imagination and esoteric sources. This evidence, while 'imaginary', perhaps best describes Taranis as we would like him to be today.
The little biker dude, is the image on the rear fender of my bike, as Taranis is the god of thounder, my bike is a strait piped Harley Davidson with removable baffles..I give real voice to my gods (LOL)
Car alarms, in a three state area, fear his mighty roar greatly.
Hal,
You know how many times I hear that a day the other way around? It really does get tiresome.
The moderators on this site are more interested in provoking people than they are in maintaining order.
Why Hal, I am shocked! Clearly this is a picture of a hand holding a mouse, with the Scroll button clearly visible. A way of telling the good folk of NT that they CAN...scroll the fuck on by something they think is offensive.
If you see something else, perhaps you should consider that your subconscious is flawed. Seek help. I suggest you find Jesus. He'll save you.
I changed it Hal. Just for you.
You still don't get it do you. It wasn't one pic about Trump. Hell, it wasn't even two pics about Trump. But when they were flagged, and Dowser correctly informed the masses that attacks n public figures was in fact allowed by the CoC, additional pics got posted of SHIT. And the article became a poop slinging article.
The easiest way to correct it was to delete ALL the shit pics. The RA made that decision in an effort to bring the article out of the sewer. The other option was to close it.
John, you know me to be honest and fair. Crude, yes. Rude, of course. But I don't lie. And I'm not lying when I say this had everything to do with bringing an article out of the gutter, and nothing to do with censorship.
She could have just closed the article without the censorship and it would fade away and that would be the end of it.
If the discussion had deteriorated that badly maybe that would have been the proper thing to do. In the meantime Perrie has criticized me and Hal, if not by name then by implication, because we were the two who posted the photos. I could never count all the photos I have seen here that are worse than those two photos. One member had has his avatar a gif of Hillary Clinton with constant vomit coming out of her mouth. Or was it shit? I think it was shit, not that it matters as a difference. That avatar stayed up for days. Then we had the member whose avatar was literally a dick. That didnt come down right away either, because it wasnt "against the rules", although certainly arguably in bad taste.
All I want to know is, when is stupidity going to become against the rules here? Or would that disqualify too many people?
All I want to know is, when is stupidity going to become against the rules here? Or would that disqualify too many people?
There would only be you and me left John. And it would get awful boring.
The article was closed by the author, John. He felt forced to because of all the poop. That is why I did what I did. XX has a right not to have his article literally pooped on as does everyone else on this forum.
I had locked the seed earlier and reopened it after Perries moderation.
But Perrie I DID USE MY WORDS and my words, though completely factual and supported with evidence were accused of being FLAMES and not legitimate arguments. (Please read the comments in that article that followed my factual words.)
Sometimes PICTURES are needed when WORDS will not do.
Sometimes PICTURES are needed when WORDS will not do.
Squirrell,
No.. I have to disagree. Example.. Read on...
One need to only do a search on google to find dozen of pictures of Hillary and Obama covered in poo. This was the hallmark of many conservatives during the election. Why should we take heed now not to do it to Prez. Trump? I find that ironic.
See, all words.
If you were on NV, you would know that you only had your words to use and I am sure you were very effective at using them. Please do the same here.
I do not know where you found these words:
One need to only do a search on google to find dozen of pictures of Hillary and Obama covered in poo. This was the hallmark of many conservatives during the election. Why should we take heed now not to do it to Prez. Trump? I find that ironic.
This is the first time I have seen them to read them as far as I know.
Those are my words.. my example of why we can use our words and not pictures.
Very well.
But what I explained to you was that I did use words. MY WORDS. Backed up with facts and evidence. And my words were completely disregarded and called flames, and there was no FLAMING done on my part at all ever. Thus, I say again: When words DON'T work, and they often do not, then pictures seem to get more response as they obviously did in this case.
I could say more, but honestly what is the point?
When are you going to get it.
It wasn't about you, take the personality out of it.
When it became more than the original two pics it became a case of PILING ON.
And we don't do that around here. WE are expected to use our brains and Perrie is being kind, she figures that you are quite capable of using yours.
Please stop trying to prove her wrong!
And now YOU are saying that I did not use my brains. Thank you for that personal insult. BTW, check you email.
@ Squirrel
It's all a matter of what one sees coloured by their personal point of view. I have seen on NT liberals complain that favouritism is shown to conservatives and conservatives complain that favouritism is shown to liberals. I don't think it is correct or fair to say that favouritism is shown to either camp.
I have also seen members playing the game of begging to be banned and in my opinion they should have their wish granted.
I believe in THIS PARTICULAR CASE we have actual factual evidence, rather than simply opinions.
BTW, I am NOT begging for anything. However, it has been my expereince so far that when I do things the right way, as explained to me, I still am rebuked for it. That is to say, I cannot win for losing. So whatever happens, happens!
"BTW, I am NOT begging for anything."
Strike one: "Please read my comment below, and then BAN me from this site if you feel that you must."
Strike two: "Okay, ban me or do whatever, because every single time I have tried to follow the rules here I have been rebuked."
Strike three: "Okay, BAN me now if that's what you want to do."
Maybe you're NOT begging to be banned, but "Frankly, my dear...", nobody's begging you to stay either.
Buzz,
NT welcomes all and doesn't ban over these silly matters.