# OT: crandc's avatar



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

I understand that you're trying to make a point with your avatar, but could you at least get like a "hunkier" more macho guy in there? That dude is giving us dudes a bad name. What is he doing? He looks like he just landed a Triple Salchow or something. 

Hilarious!!! :biggrin:


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

No doubt..


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

"There's nowt so ***** as folk"

I find Avatars are a very easy way to find out if I should read the post. I tend not to agree with anyone who has bad taste. :biggrin: 

iWatas


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

The man in question had just won a medal at the Gay Games in Montreal. A swimming event.
Don't worry, I'm acquiring a database of Boys of the Month candidates.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

At least his boobs are real.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> The man in question had just won a medal at the Gay Games in Montreal. A swimming event.
> Don't worry, I'm acquiring a database of Boys of the Month candidates.


Personally, I think these would be nice touches (not to be confused with tushes. )


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

crandc said:


> The man in question had just won a medal at the Gay Games in Montreal. A swimming event.
> Don't worry, I'm acquiring a database of Boys of the Month candidates.


it might have been at the Gay Games in Montreal, but nothing says macho like a glistening man in a black thong, on one knee, giving the world a hug!


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Mr. January..


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

I'm offended!! :smilewink


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

ABM said:


> Mr. January..


no-one says an unkind word about Freddie Mercury!


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Great... now I need to put on some Queen!

Freddy Mercury was so awesome. :cheers: 

...of course, I like prog metal, so I'm a dork enough already without having to say that. :clown:


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

DrewFix said:


> no-one says an unkind word about Freddie Mercury!


ha! shows what you know, thats Indiana Pacer Jeff Foster at the Pacers costume party last year.


----------



## ABM (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> ha! shows what you know, thats Indiana Pacer Jeff Foster at the Pacers costume party last year.



Thanks for letting the proverbial cat out of the bag, there, Hap.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> The man in question had just won a medal at the Gay Games in Montreal. A swimming event.
> Don't worry, I'm acquiring a database of Boys of the Month candidates.


Are people allowed to put up avatars SOLELY to rile up other posters?

I think that it's clear that crandc is doing this just to bait people and/or to make a political statement, each of which is pretty clearly not allowed on this board as I understand it.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Are people allowed to put up avatars SOLELY to rile up other posters?
> 
> I think that it's clear that crandc is doing this just to bait people and/or to make a political statement, each of which is pretty clearly not allowed on this board as I understand it.
> 
> Ed O.


ah, but she could just say she doesn't see it that way, and there's the big loop hole.

I mean, (I've been waiting to say this for a while now) I'M not offended by Crandc's avatar, and if anyone is, they can just ignore avatars.

Afterall, just because some might be offended by it doesn't mean she can't have it. Regardless of whether or not YOU (royal) think that she's doing it just to rile up people.

Or, in fancier terms, if people are allowed to have scantily clad women as their avatars, she should be able to have one of a man in a speedo (regardless of her own personal reasons). She doesn't think it's glorifying or sexualizing men, it's just a (maybe in her eyes) "hot guy" who she wants to have in her avatar.

I say if one is allowed, so is the other. Since there's no rules (as of the last time I was a mod) in place to clarify what was acceptable vs what isn't, I say tough ****.


----------



## Sham (Dec 2, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Are people allowed to put up avatars SOLELY to rile up other posters?
> 
> I think that it's clear that crandc is doing this just to bait people and/or to make a political statement, each of which is pretty clearly not allowed on this board as I understand it.
> 
> Ed O.



That wouldn't stand up in court. It weren't her that said that.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> The man in question had just won a medal at the Gay Games in Montreal. A swimming event.
> Don't worry, I'm acquiring a database of Boys of the Month candidates.


I have a couple candidates for you crandc! one is a hunk, the others are just 'easy on the eyes' (or so their wives tell them).


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Are people allowed to put up avatars SOLELY to rile up other posters?
> 
> I think that it's clear that crandc is doing this just to bait people and/or to make a political statement, each of which is pretty clearly not allowed on this board as I understand it.
> 
> Ed O.


And what is the purpose of the France Burning avatar, may I ask?

Stepping Razor

PS I confess that for a long time I kept Sheed as my avatar only to bait people and/or make a political statement


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

ShamBulls said:


> That wouldn't stand up in court. It weren't her that said that.


She said this:



> I am not calling for a ban, but it does make me uncomfortable that, every time I open the board, it is quite literally thrown in my face that at least one poster considers women nothing more than sexual toys for men's amusements.
> However, if I become a supporting member, which I plan on doing, I expect that ABM, and for that matter TalkHard, will be accommodating when I post photos of nearly nude men.


http://www.basketballboards.net/forum/showthread.php?t=213463

What other reason is implied than to inflame posters? 

I don't mind her avatar at all--even if I appreciate some of the others more. I don't like that someone is deliberately provoking and/or causing intentional discomfort just to make a political point.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Stepping Razor said:


> And what is the purpose of the France Burning avatar, may I ask?


History may be being made in France right now. I consider it to be a potentially critical time in the history of Western civilization... I'm not making any judgments on it one way or the other (other than to state the obvious that fires tend to be bad) but I think that it's just an important set of events in an important time.

What other reason would I have to use that? Have I posted anything--or indicated even obliquely--that I would use my avatar to taunt others?

Ed O.


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

My quote disproves your point, Ed. I did not say I was posting avatars to provoke. I said that since I oppose banning photos of nearly nude women, even if they make me uncomfortable, then by rights no one should object to my posting nearly nude men, even if it makes them uncomfortable. Fair's fair.

As for politics, what is the political statement? That some gay men swim well? It's quite a reach to call that political.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Well, Ed, you did say the crying baby you were holding reminded you of a few posters on the board, and implied that your use of said avatar was inspired by the posts about you.  That might be considered taunting via avatar use.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BlazerCaravan said:


> Well, Ed, you did say the crying baby you were holding reminded you of a few posters on the board, and implied that your use of said avatar was inspired by the posts about you.  That might be considered taunting via avatar use.


Yeah. And if you spell my name out in its entirety and take every third letter backwards you get a secret message. 

Ed O.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Yeah. And if you spell my name out in its entirety and take every third letter backwards you get a secret message.
> 
> Ed O.


And now you're implying I'm paranoid. How clever.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> My quote disproves your point, Ed. I did not say I was posting avatars to provoke. I said that since I oppose banning photos of nearly nude women, even if they make me uncomfortable, then by rights no one should object to my posting nearly nude men, even if it makes them uncomfortable. Fair's fair.
> 
> As for politics, what is the political statement? That some gay men swim well? It's quite a reach to call that political.


Let's see... "Fair's fair." 

How's that for a political statement?

You are uncomfortable by some avatars, so you want to make others uncomfortable.

Whether those who posted the avatars you don't like are doing it to make others uncomfortable or just because they like to look at women seemingly doesn't enter into your reasoning. But it should.

If someone's car alarm goes off in the middle of the night and wakes me up, that sucks. If it went off because someone was breaking into their car, I'm CERTAINLY not going to wait until they fall asleep and then set off my alarm just to wake them up (since "fair's fair").

But that seems to be what you're doing here. You've put up an avatar just to make others uncomfortable, to prove that people like Talkhard shouldn't post things unless they consider the feelings of others. 

And, to add to that, your TELLLING us that you're doing it for that reason. That this is just the first in a series of images that will be targeted at making some other posters uncomfortable, and you seem proud of yourself for tweaking the nose of other posters just in the name of "fair's fair."

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BlazerCaravan said:


> And now you're implying I'm paranoid. How clever.


Not paranoid. Just grasping at straws because you don't have a legitimate point.

Ed O.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Add to that the fact that noone of the guys are really offended by it, and you have an unsuccessful attempt at passive aggresive behavior. Ed's got a point.

EDIT: And my point is perfectly legit. It just disagrees with Ed, so it's illegitimate to Ed.


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

Hap said:


> ha! shows what you know, thats Indiana Pacer Jeff Foster at the Pacers costume party last year.


Foster's costumes are ALWAYS bang-on... 
he get's me every year!!


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

Ed O said:


> You are uncomfortable by some avatars, so you want to make others uncomfortable.


Sheesh, Ed, do you ever READ other people's posts? I didn't say that. I said I was not calling for banning, for example, TalkHard's avatar, although some people did, because I oppose banning even those that make me uncomfortable. I oppose censorship. And I said that in fairness others should not call for banning mine. Because I oppose censorship of even what I don't like I am asking for the same courtesy. 

If this be politics, make the most of it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

BlazerCaravan said:


> And my point is perfectly legit. It just disagrees with Ed, so it's illegitimate to Ed.


Praise, slap, praise, BC. Say I've got a point on the one hand and then say that I don't think that any point I disagree with can be legit (see Fork's question about schedule sample size in another thread to show why you're wrong on that point)... you're killing me 

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> If this be politics, make the most of it.




So now we've got TWO political statements you're trying to make (although to be fair they are interrelated): "fair's fair" and "censorship is bad".

What if someone posted an image of an aborted fetus, or an image of a KKK member? Censorship isn't valuable in and of itself, but it's entirely necessary to keep things civil.

And, for the record, I read your posts if I respond to them.

Ed O.


----------



## Masbee (Dec 31, 2002)

Stepping Razor said:


> And what is the purpose of the France Burning avatar, may I ask?
> 
> Stepping Razor
> 
> PS I confess that for a long time I kept Sheed as my avatar only to bait people and/or make a political statement


And I keep the Scottie Pippen avatar just to remind that this team used to go after good players every chance they could.

Very provocative - and intentional. :evil:

I should be punished.


----------



## Iwatas (Aug 3, 2003)

Crandc is just trying to rile people up. It is not productive, and it is rather infantile, but we are all free to ignore it and her.

iWatas


----------



## The Professional Fan (Nov 5, 2003)

Iwatas said:


> Crandc is just trying to rile people up. It is not productive, and it is rather infantile, but we are all free to ignore it and her.
> 
> iWatas



I don't know if she's trying to "rile" people up, but she is definitely trying to prove a point (self admitted).

I find absolutely nothing offensive about her avatar. I find it really funny, actually.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Ed O said:


> So now we've got TWO political statements you're trying to make (although to be fair they are interrelated): "fair's fair" and "censorship is bad".
> 
> What if someone posted an image of an aborted fetus, or an image of a KKK member? Censorship isn't valuable in and of itself, but it's entirely necessary to keep things civil.
> 
> ...


While we're on the issue of political statements, Ed, what's up with your avatar? Have I missed a post somewhere where you explained the point you're trying to make?

Oops. Sorry, Ed. I guess I really should read the thread before making a post like this.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Edited. 

Ed O.


----------



## BlazerCaravan (Aug 12, 2004)

Ed O said:


> Praise, slap, praise, BC. Say I've got a point on the one hand and then say that I don't think that any point I disagree with can be legit (see Fork's question about schedule sample size in another thread to show why you're wrong on that point)... you're killing me
> 
> Ed O.


I hope nobody thinks I have to be consistent. I mean, if I disagree with you, you hear about it. if I agree with you, you hear about it. I know that it's a little strange on a message board, where people like to set up a predictable personality for themselves.

And I didn't say any point, just my one point. Now _you're_ grasping at straws, in my opinion.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Yeah. And if you spell my name out in its entirety and take every third letter backwards you get a secret message.
> 
> Ed O.



your whole name or Edward?

because I don't remember how to spell your last name and I don't know your middle name.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

Hap said:


> I have a couple candidates for you crandc! one is a hunk, the others are just 'easy on the eyes' (or so their wives tell them).



uke:


----------



## SodaPopinski (Aug 10, 2004)

What's funny to me is how much people truly care about someone's avatar. Hell, two years ago, I didn't even know what an "avatar" was, let alone the fact that using it to promote one's sexuality could be offensive to another message board user.

I mean seriously, people, can we get any more nerdy?

"you have an offensive avatar"

"No, YOU have an offensive avatar"

"My D&D character has more hit points than your D&D character"

"Well, my D&D character has more magic points than your D&D character"

blah blah blah

Let it rest, and let's talk basketball. Or take it to the OT forum.

Holy crap - an avatar argument. I think I've seen it all now.

-Pop


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Hey If Guys can have women as their avatar, then women can have men....If you believe otherwise, I dare call you sexist.


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

I am uncomfortable with the connotation of homosexuality in the avatar.


----------



## Stepping Razor (Apr 24, 2004)

I think this whole thread (to say nothing of the kudos to various random sports franchises, speculation on division standings, etc.) really just highlights how long it's been since the Blazers have actually played a basketball game.

We are BORED. And, apparently, we get pissy when we get bored.

Thank god there's a game tonight.

Stepping Razor


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Hey If Guys can have women as their avatar, then women can have men....If you believe otherwise, I dare call you sexist.


I don't think that namecalling is appropriate, Schilly.

It's not a question of what's being put into the avatar for me, it's a question of WHY it's put into the avatar. Considering how much grief mixum took for his INTENT (since, after all, we were repeatedly reminded that it had nothing to do with his negativity) to bait people, I find it interesting and unfortunate that someone can make the call that they PLAN TO MAKE OTHERS UNCOMFORTABLE with their avatar and then do it.

I'm not saying anything should be done about it... that's not my place. But I will call it hypocrisy and unfortunate. Of course, in the grand scheme of things it's not a big deal and I will be the first one to admit to being hypocritical occasionally.

Ed O.


----------



## handclap problematic (Nov 6, 2003)

I guess I just don't see anything wrong with crandc's avatar. What's wrong with a little diversity, not only on the board, but in society in general? If I wasn't a dirt poor college student and payed money to get an avatar here, I think I might just back crandc up on this one...... I don't see how one could be for the freedoms that this country allows, willing to fight for said freedoms, yet be against acts of freedom, such as this. If homosexuality is against your personal beleif systems then at least allow others to express their beleifs.....although, I doubt that is the point crandc is trying to make....... oh, and equality for all genders, races and religions? That's a good thing.

Prunetang


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I don't think that namecalling is appropriate, Schilly.
> 
> It's not a question of what's being put into the avatar for me, it's a question of WHY it's put into the avatar. Considering how much grief mixum took for his INTENT (since, after all, we were repeatedly reminded that it had nothing to do with his negativity) to bait people, I find it interesting and unfortunate that someone can make the call that they PLAN TO MAKE OTHERS UNCOMFORTABLE with their avatar and then do it.


is it different to say you're going to do something because you want to see if people believe in the saying "whats good for the geese, is good for the gander"?

because to me, at worse, thats what crandc did.



> I'm not saying anything should be done about it... that's not my place. But I will call it hypocrisy and unfortunate. Of course, in the grand scheme of things it's not a big deal and I will be the first one to admit to being hypocritical occasionally.
> 
> Ed O.


it's odd to hear people say "far be it from me to complain, but"...or "I'm not saying something should be done about it...but"...

this isn't the same as mixum's incidences, because it's not even clear that crandc was doing it to bait people, oe trolling boards. 

If she's starts doing tons of avatars and rubbing it in peoples faces (pardon the pun) that's one thing.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I don't think that namecalling is appropriate, Schilly.
> 
> It's not a question of what's being put into the avatar for me, it's a question of WHY it's put into the avatar. Considering how much grief mixum took for his INTENT (since, after all, we were repeatedly reminded that it had nothing to do with his negativity) to bait people, I find it interesting and unfortunate that someone can make the call that they PLAN TO MAKE OTHERS UNCOMFORTABLE with their avatar and then do it.
> 
> ...


Who's to say that men don't put women in their avatar in an attempt to intimidate women from wanting to become members of our board?

All kinds of people post avatars to make a statement...so when a women does it, men jump on her like she has no right to do so.

1 question I said I dare call you sexist...who was I referring too, except as a generalization?


----------



## tlong (Jan 6, 2003)

What this conversation illuminates is the inconsistency regarding the enforcement of rules in this forum. This is at least partially due to varying definitions of the meaning of the rules amongst the populace of posters. Clearly the solution is to no longer subject posters to rules of any sort. Please PM me when this has in fact happened.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> is it different to say you're going to do something because you want to see if people believe in the saying "whats good for the geese, is good for the gander"?
> 
> because to me, at worse, thats what crandc did.


People can do that all they want, IMO, as long as they don't break the rules of the board. Trolling for complaints and seeking to make others uncomfortable on purpose doesn't appear to be consistent with those rules.



> it's odd to hear people say "far be it from me to complain, but"...or "I'm not saying something should be done about it...but"...


Really? Why is that weird? 

Are only people in place to make decisions supposed to give opinions? It seems that the whole reason for this board is for us to look at the Blazers and give our opinions... even if we can't effect change.

This thread has nothing to do with the Blazers, but it's a similar thing for me: I'm not a mod and I don't make decisions like this. But I'll give my opinion on things nevertheless.



> this isn't the same as mixum's incidences, because it's not even clear that crandc was doing it to bait people, oe trolling boards.


You're starting with a conclusory phrase ("trolling boards") and then saying that this is a different situation... I don't see that it is different. On the one hand, the action being taken is less offensive (avatars are less invasive than some of the things mixum did to piss people off). On the other hand, unless someone thinks that mixum is just a liar, his level of intent was much lower than crandc's.



> If she's starts doing tons of avatars and rubbing it in peoples faces (pardon the pun) that's one thing.


Did you see the post where she said that she was lining up a "boys of the day" group of avatars?

Or the earlier one where she said she was going to do this?

I don't know where the line for a ton of avatars is drawn, and I don't know what rubbing one's face in them would be, either. To me neither of those should be criteria because of the fuzziness.

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed I though the intent of you usin your own face, periodically, as your avatar was intended to break my monitor, by way of my boot passing through it.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Who's to say that men don't put women in their avatar in an attempt to intimidate women from wanting to become members of our board?


I am. I give people the benefit of the doubt until the prove otherwise. Do you have ANY evidence that women are put into avatars to intimidate other posters?

And if you do, why allow those avatars?



> All kinds of people post avatars to make a statement...so when a women does it, men jump on her like she has no right to do so.


Really? I don't see people attacking crandc over her avatar, although maybe I'm missing something.

I'm being a squeaky wheel here because of her stated intentions and then her follow through. I respect her for doing it since she thinks it's right, but I'm a bit confused by how she can get away with it.



> 1 question I said I dare call you sexist...who was I referring too, except as a generalization?


I might have misread your statement. I believe that women can have men the same way men can have women.

I do not think that people should be able to premeditate, publically declare, and then follow through on the plan to cause other posters discomfort. As I said previously, whether it's a fetus, or a Klansman, or a series of almost-naked gay guys doesn't matter to me.

Ed O.


----------



## Goldmember (May 24, 2003)

SodaPopinski said:


> What's funny to me is how much people truly care about someone's avatar. Hell, two years ago, I didn't even know what an "avatar" was, let alone the fact that using it to promote one's sexuality could be offensive to another message board user.
> 
> I mean seriously, people, can we get any more nerdy?
> 
> ...


:laugh: Post of the day!


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> Really? Why is that weird?


because if someone says it's not for them to do something, but I'm gonna do it it..

well, don't say it's not for you to do something...if you're gonna do it.



> Are only people in place to make decisions supposed to give opinions? It seems that the whole reason for this board is for us to look at the Blazers and give our opinions... even if we can't effect change.


jesus christ ed, why did you go there?

because what we're talking about, and what you're implying, have about as much in common as venus has in common with a grain of sand.



> This thread has nothing to do with the Blazers, but it's a similar thing for me: I'm not a mod and I don't make decisions like this. But I'll give my opinion on things nevertheless.


and where did I say your opinion can't be given?

because I'm fairly certain that never came up.



> You're starting with a conclusory phrase ("trolling boards") and then saying that this is a different situation... I don't see that it is different. On the one hand, the action being taken is less offensive (avatars are less invasive than some of the things mixum did to piss people off). On the other hand, unless someone thinks that mixum is just a liar, his level of intent was much lower than crandc's.


I wouldn't say that crandc's quest to see if people are hyprocrits is on par with the level of someone who's trolled, or baited people (or in a grand scheme of things, insulted a fan base). For you to make such a bigger issue out of her having some guy in a speed as her avatar, and to try to make it out that she's doing this to spite people (despite the fact she actually never said that) seems to me you're stretching the argument just to argue for arguings sake.



> Did you see the post where she said that she was lining up a "boys of the day" group of avatars?


I'm sure you've heard of this thing called a joke Ed. Usually when you have a sense of humor, you catch those things.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I am. I give people the benefit of the doubt until the prove otherwise. Do you have ANY evidence that women are put into avatars to intimidate other posters?
> 
> And if you do, why allow those avatars?
> 
> ...


Then why were you offended that I used the term sexist, I didn't call you or anyone else sexist.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Ed I though the intent of you usin your own face, periodically, as your avatar was intended to break my monitor.


Yes, property damage is always a primary goal for my posts and my avatar should be no different.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Schilly said:


> Then why were you offended that I used the term sexist, I didn't call you or anyone else sexist.


I wasn't offended. I said that namecalling isn't appropriate. And I just clarified that I thought you were labeling anyone who thought the avatar was inappropriate was basing their opinion on sexism.

Ed O.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

Hap said:


> because if someone says it's not for them to do something, but I'm gonna do it it..
> 
> well, don't say it's not for you to do something...if you're gonna do it.


I don't understand what this has to do with what I've posted. I have complained, and I said that I am not asking for anything in particular to be done about it.

If I asked for her avatar to be removed, or for her membership to be revoked, and THEN I said I wasn't going to ask for anything to be done, then clearly your commment would make more sense.



> I'm sure you've heard of this thing called a joke Ed. Usually when you have a sense of humor, you catch those things.


I don't see it as a joke, sorry, any more than I did when she said she was going to become a supporting member so she could make other posters uncomfortable by posting almost-naked men.

Guess we'll see whether the joke is on me or on you, huh?

Ed O.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I wasn't offended. I said that namecalling isn't appropriate. And I just clarified that I thought you were labeling anyone who thought the avatar was inappropriate was basing their opinion on sexism.
> 
> Ed O.


True, true, but I left the labeling up to ones own concsience.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

you know, I enjoyed ed arguing with others far more than I enjoy ed aruging with me.

so I'm gonna go back to letting ed and zags argue over petty things, instead of me and ed arguing over petty things.


----------



## e_blazer1 (Feb 3, 2004)

Man, we need a good trade rumor around here. 

Avatar angst is pathetic.


----------



## Schilly (Dec 30, 2002)

e_blazer1 said:


> Man, we need a good trade rumor around here.
> 
> Avatar angst is pathetic.


I'm actually pretty disgusted that 

A: it even came up

and

B: People actually took issue with it.


----------



## trifecta (Oct 10, 2002)

This cracks me up. No one really cares about her avatar and you've got me posting on page#4 of a debate over it.

I agree with Ed though here. It's not the avatar that's the problem.

I apoligize in advance for a horrid analogy but here it goes....

Say I tried to choke someone with a donut. The issue wouldn't be that I gave someone a donut, it would be the intent in which I used the donut. 

Same with her avater. The issue isn't that naked dude on my screen. She has every right to post that there. The issue is that she's declared that her main motivation is to bait, bug, discomfort, anger other posters.


----------



## RedHot&Rolling (Jun 26, 2004)

Did you hear? Blazers traded Joel Przybilla, Ruben Patterson and Jarret Jack to Memphis for Gasol and D Stoudamire today. :biggrin: 








Just kidding!!


----------



## DrewFix (Feb 9, 2004)

RedHot&Rolling said:


> Did you hear? Blazers traded Joel Przybilla, Ruben Patterson and Jarret Jack to Memphis for Gasol and D Stoudamire today. :biggrin:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


if you don't find a fruit basket offensive than you haven't been privy to the college pranks that i have...


----------



## Kopay (Jun 28, 2005)

trifecta said:


> This cracks me up. No one really cares about her avatar and you've got me posting on page#4 of a debate over it.
> 
> I agree with Ed though here. It's not the avatar that's the problem.
> 
> ...


Yes, but by starting this thread and groaning about it, aren't you just letting her prove her point? Really if this subject went untouched, would she have even kept it up for longer, or just decided she needed a new avatar? We'll never know. 

It's kind of like the little annoying 6-year old niece or nephew you see at holiday-get-togethers that runs around trying to push everybody's buttons, and either gets a rise out of somebody eventually, or gets bored and goes to torture the family pet. 

Personally I don't care what the avatar represents. It's a two way street. If we start banning personalized avatars and limiting them to "sports only" images, this board is going to lose one of the biggest things that makes this place unique.


----------



## Trader Ed (Jun 17, 2002)

I am not going to read all of this thread....

I saw the avatar this morning and told her.... more power to her...


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

why dont people put OT in the frickin OT forum 
theres like 10+ on the main page


and ffs guys , 5 pages on a frickin avatar......

close this crap n talk some ball 

or move it to the actual OT forum so people who really really care can go there n read it - this is not blazer related


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

if OT posts are such a bother, you could just not read the post...


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

that would make sense if we didnt have a OT forum , kinda defeats the point dont u think


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

BlayZa said:


> that would make sense if we didnt have a OT forum , kinda defeats the point dont u think


not really. If it's not about Portland, or one of us, it belongs there. Like when Wankers kid is born, shouldn't it be announced in the main forum?

since most of us actually want to knw about it, and wouldn't know if it's announced in the OT forum?


----------



## Nightfly (Sep 24, 2002)

I like her Avatar.


----------



## BlayZa (Dec 31, 2002)

sure enough - but this thread isnt anywhere near being in the same league of community importance as wankers kid being born , i dont see any comparison there - unless you're saying they are equally important to the community on the whole.


----------



## Minstrel (Dec 31, 2002)

The Professional Fan said:


> I don't know if she's trying to "rile" people up, but she is definitely trying to prove a point (self admitted).
> 
> I find absolutely nothing offensive about her avatar. I find it really funny, actually.


 This is my take on the matter, also. Since when can't one make a "political statement" with their avatars? I've seen plenty of George Bush avatars from conservative posters. I've seen Barack Obama avatars from liberal posters (I sported one myself, at one point). I've never seen any policy banning such a thing.

"Fair's fair" is one of the most mild sentiments that I've ever seen labelled a "political point." I certainly don't think it is disallowed or should be disallowed. I don't even consider it in bad taste or immature; I consider it a good point.


----------



## barfo (Jan 2, 2003)

crandc said:


> As for politics, what is the political statement? That some gay men swim well?


No, the political statement is that some gay men swim better than other gay men. Implicit is the concept that not all gay people are identical. Granting individuality, it's not such a stretch to grant full humanity. And we can't have that, can we? Clearly a deeply subversive avatar. 

Either that, or it's a picture of a nekkid guy.

barfo


----------



## zagsfan20 (Dec 24, 2004)

Personally, I got bigger fish to fry than worrying about what kind of picture someone has on the side of their posts on an internet forum.....

(like people trying to disrespect my Zags on an internet forum)....


----------



## Scout226 (Sep 17, 2003)

ha ha.. Pretty amusing thread actually. It was only a matter of time.. 

A few things I learned today.. 

1) There is a Gay Games.. hmm.. I think we now need a Hetero Games.. 

2) HTTY likes the avator... No comment on that.. (j/k) 

3) The Blazers won last night... Yiiiiipeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee...


----------



## crandc (Sep 15, 2004)

GOOD GRIEF!!!!

I come to work and find 6 pages on my bleeping avatar!

I mean, I enjoy attention as much as the next person but some people need to take up needlepoint or something, they are bored!

Once again, I never said I was adding avatars to offend, bait, etc. I did say that if pics of women were OK then pics of men should be as well. Saying men and women should abide by the same rules, is that too political for this board? So report me! I did realize some people might not like my avatars. Hell, some people hate the WNBA, should I have been banned for having Diana Taurasi as an avatar?Should I never say or do anything because someone else might be irritated? I notice Ed. O doesn't live by that rule!

Someone doesn't know US history. The statement "if this be politics, make the most of it" is a paraphrase of a famous statement from the American Revolution, calling for independence from Britian and saying "if this be treason, make the most of it". Someone bored enough to post on avatars should maybe study history instead.

BTW, it was "boy of the month", not day. Changing avatars monthly is hardly excessive. At least one poster changes his unclad women more frequently than that.

Scout, the Gay Games started as the Gay Olympics. Because gay, lesbian, bi and trans athletes were often either outright excluded or discouraged or simply forced into the closet in "regular" sports. It now includes thousands of athletes in dozens of events from dozens of countries. Next games in 2006 will take place in Germany. The International Olympic Committee sued over the name, despite the fact that everything from spelling bees to dog shows uses the name Olympics, and won, so it is now the Gay Games. 

barfo, you made me laugh.

And yes, the Blazers won last night. Isn't that a tad more relevant to this board?

I'm done here, I wash my paws of this discussion.


----------



## MARIS61 (Apr 28, 2003)

Ed O said:


> I don't see it as a joke, sorry, any more than I did when she said she was going to become a supporting member so she could make other posters uncomfortable by posting almost-naked men.
> 
> Guess we'll see whether the joke is on me or on you, huh?
> Ed O.


I'm pretty sure it's on you Ed.


----------



## Ed O (Dec 30, 2002)

crandc said:


> Someone doesn't know US history. The statement "if this be politics, make the most of it" is a paraphrase of a famous statement from the American Revolution, calling for independence from Britian and saying "if this be treason, make the most of it". Someone bored enough to post on avatars should maybe study history instead.


I will cede many of your points, crandc. I think that I was being too feisty in this thread, and I apologize to anyone who thought that I was actually angry (as opposed to being feisty... maybe only Hap can truly understand that line).

BUT I must protest about your claim that I don't know my history, particularly surrounding the founding fathers. I did not recognize your restatement of Patrick Henry's quote, although you have to confess that changing one of nine words makes it harder to pick up the allusion. I have "The Anti-Federalist Papers" on my nightstand (although I haven't started it yet), which is an accumulation of responses by Henry and others to Hamilton/Madison/Jay's Federalist Papers. I am wrapping up a book on Benedict Arnold after recently completing bios of Washington, Hamilton, Adams and Jefferson... I certainly don't know everything there is to know about the period, but I know more than you must think I do.

I might be bored enough to post on avatars, but I'm bored enough to do lots of other crap, too, including study US history.

Ed O.


----------



## Dan (Dec 30, 2002)

Ed O said:


> I might be bored enough to post on avatars, but I'm bored enough to do lots of other crap, too, including study US history.
> 
> Ed O.


hey! nothing wrong with studying history!


----------

