Does every advertisement have to be for the queer beers?

RuggieBear

McClane wrote:

Look lads i have no problem with gays, i have no problem with what the ad's are advertising. I have a problem with the imagery used in one of the ads.

Is it such a bad thing to ask it be toned down ? Or to even complain about it ?

but it's still unnatural...?

Talliesin

Thaed wrote:

Didnt you know Ruthie dear
you are loved and revered by all the boards.ie queers.

She's just like Judy, Bette and Marlene rolled into one.

McClane wrote:

Male & Female = natural
Male & Male = Not natural

If it's not natural then it obviously never happens. Therefore you don't have to worry about it.

McClane wrote:

I've no problem with it just NOT in front of me.

Really, I don't think I'd particularly like to do anythning sexual with a man or a woman in front of you.

Nobody is doing anything in front of you (well, maybe there's a gay orgy happening in your office reception area I don't know about, but that's hardly our fault).

McClane wrote:

No its not, its everyones site

It's not that either. It's the admins site. The admins okayed the adverts.

McClane wrote:

according to a lot of people everyone doesn't include people who don't want to see that kind of crap on the banners.

According to a few weirdos and perverts. The rest of this thread is the rest of us having fun taking the piss out of them.

McClane wrote:

I don't want anyone to think i'm looking at porn and i don't want anyone to think i'm queer.

Meh, I don't want anyone thinking I'm straight or that I'm gay, but it happens.

Get "het" tattooed on your forhead or something.

McClane wrote:

Is it any wonder i have no respect for people/groups who play the victim ?

Why, because you're own attempts to play the victim are so poor?

Who's playing the victim, we're organising a piss-up.

rsynnott wrote:

I don't want to see paintballing!

Neither do I. Guns that don't kill - just not natural if you ask me.

Chong

Tbh McClane even though you are a member since 2002 , you are not a subscriber so you are not really in a position to complain. Dont get me wrong I am not advocating the ads but as I said before they will only be there for 3 more days so you may aswell get over it , I have.

RuggieBear

WDK wrote:

Tbh McClane even though you are a member since 2002 , you are not a subscriber so you are not really in a position to complain....

emm...subscribers aren't in a position to complain either.

Talliesin

WDK wrote:

Tbh McClane even though you are a member since 2002 , you are not a subscriber so you are not really in a position to complain.

Subscribers aren't in a position to complain either. They are in a position to say "sod that" and stop their donations.

Everyone is in a position to offer feedback or to say "hold on, I don't think this is quite right". Everyone else is in a position to take the mick when said feedback is silly.

McClane

Dont get me wrong I am not advocating the ads but as I said before they will only be there for 3 more days so you may aswell get over it , I have.

Yeah fair enough i suppose.

You try and talk reasonably to people and your accused of being a bigot and someone else posts a site supporting pedophilia and yet its ok ?

Doesn't say much for the Admins on Boards.

Chong

RuggieBear wrote:

emm...subscribers aren't in a position to complain either.

Well in some way they do because they are the customer but that dosen't mean a subscribers complaint is considered either.

Talliesin

McClane wrote:

Yeah fair enough i suppose.

You try and talk reasonably to people and your accused of being a bigot and someone else posts a site supporting pedophilia and yet its ok ?

I can't find that post.

ecksor

You try and talk reasonably to people and your accused of being a bigot and someone else posts a site supporting pedophilia and yet its ok ?

Doesn't say much for the Admins on Boards.

I did not find your comments at all reasonable. If the images are a problem at your place of work for whatever reason then feel free to share that with us. Straying into the realms of what is and isn't natural and admitting your own double standards along the way doesn't really put you in the category of "reasonable".

WizZard

RuggieBear wrote:

emm...subscribers aren't in a position to complain either.

We get a special "Insert Complaint Here" text box that I'm sure goes straight to the admins personal mailboxes

Chong

Tbh admins do bang up job around and its clear from the work cloud was working on today. Who brought paedophilia in to the argument ?

Talliesin

WDK wrote:

Well in some way they do because they are the customer

Without wanting to get off-topic on this one it's important to realise that subscribers are not customers. Subscribers are people who like boards.ie enough that they want to help with the financial burden of running it. Likewise other people help with time and effort (the moderators, organisers of events, etc).

None of us are customers.

Chong

Granted Talliesin.:)

This thread certainly has got a lot of mileage.

RuggieBear

WDK wrote:

Well in some way they do because they are the customer but that dosen't mean a subscribers complaint is considered either.

donators not customers....
I can kinda see where you are coming from but never assume that since you have given boards money, they owe you anything...best to look at subscription as a donation.

mycroft

McClane wrote:

You try and talk reasonably to people and your accused of being a bigot and

lets look at how reasonable you are;

McClane wrote:

Male & Male = Not natural and sickening to alot of people to watch.

Oh yes, most reasonable, and intelligent, and progressive and.......oh christ sarcasm fails me.

Look calling it unnatural and sickening, claiming it offends you, and then saying you're being reasonable and tolerant of "gays" is well...... :rolleyes:

Mc "Not that I'm a rancid little bigot who wants this site to pander to my small mindedness, but would perverts crawl back into your closests so I don't have be exposed to your flith" Clane

McClane

If the images are a problem at your place of work for whatever reason then feel free to share that with us.

Regardless of what is being advertised i find the imagery distasteful personally.

Straying into the realms of what is and isn't natural and admitting your own double standards along the way doesn't really put you in the category of "reasonable".

1. My personal beliefs on homosexuality etc is not the question. I don't hate, dislike or any other way have anything against gays. I have gay friends. I simply don't want to see that type of thing and i don't think its natural. Thats not what i was complaining about and i'm allowed to have my opinion on that subject and i'm allowed to think whatever i like.

2. A post was made back to me and on the site posted it stated:

"Apparently bigots think that pedophiles endorse sex with children. Most in fact, are against molesting children. Although they are sexually oriented to children, it is a sexual orientation they cannot control like homosexuality.

Bigots are more common than one would think. For example, 30 years ago homosexuals would go to prison, yet not many people objected to that. Today, pedophilia is the main taboo, and bigots are now active in preventing pedophiles from expressing their sexuality - even though most pedophiles do NOT want to molest or harm any child, but a simply attracted to them."

Is that an acceptable link ?

Chong

FFS can we just leave it, the ads are there for only 3 more fookin days ,ya have to get used to it.

Talliesin

McClane wrote:

Is that an acceptable link ?

Since you have still failed to say which post in question had the link I don't know.

rsynnott

McClane wrote:

Regardless of what is being advertised i find the imagery distasteful personally.



1. My personal beliefs on homosexuality etc is not the question. I don't hate, dislike or any other way have anything against gays. I have gay friends. I simply don't want to see that type of thing and i don't think its natural. Thats not what i was complaining about and i'm allowed to have my opinion on that subject and i'm allowed to think whatever i like.

Fortunately, however, boards isn't required to cater to your particular brand of mental broken-ness.

WDK wrote:

FFS can we just leave it, the ads are there for only 3 more fookin days ,ya have to get used to it.

Ssh; we're having fun playing with this one.

McClane

Fortunately, however, boards isn't required to cater to your particular brand of mental broken-ness.

Whereas it does cater for people with no tolerance for any complaints against the banners or content of the site ?

Am i anti-gay ? No.

Do i think its unnatural ? Yes i do. So other animals do it that makes it natural ? So what happened ? <arcasm>Someone saw a dog humping another dogs arse or a dog humping a tree and decided it was a good idea ? </sarcasm>

Does it matter what i think about it ? No because it doesn't affect me or you. I wasn't attacking your sexual orientation, i was questioning the content of the banners on the site.
I don't know about it and i don't WANT to know about it. Just because i don't want your crap shoved in my face makes me wrong and a bigot ?

Chong

I certainly haven't seen any links to a paedophillic website, so he is talking outta of his arse.

rsynnott

McClane wrote:

Whereas it does cater for people with no tolerance for any complaints against the banners or content of the site ?

I have tolerance for your babble. I've been reading and replying to it, haven't I? I just think (and most people here seem to think) that it's nonsense.

McClane wrote:

Am i anti-gay ? No.

Really? Would you object if you saw two lads kissing in the street? Sounds like you might.

Do i think its unnatural ? Yes i do. So other animals do it that makes it natural ?

Erm, yes, more or less by definition.

So what happened ? <arcasm>Someone saw a dog humping another dogs arse or a dog humping a tree and decided it was a good idea ? </sarcasm>

No; it's natural in humans, too. Obviously. Otherwise, why would people do it? And gay people don't, as a rule, shag trees.

Does it matter what i think about it ? No because it doesn't affect me or you. I wasn't attacking your sexual orientation, i was questioning the content of the banners on the site.
I don't know about it and i don't WANT to know about it. Just because i don't want your crap shoved in my face makes me wrong and a bigot ?

Pretty much, yep. I wouldn't object if there was a scantily-clad woman ad (well, not too much )

Talliesin

WDK wrote:

I certainly haven't seen any links to a paedophillic website, so he is talking outta of his arse.

Yes. And since we don't need his crap shovelled in our faces maybe I should just ban him and be done with it.

McClane

Ban me for what ? For saying i thought the banners should be toned down ?

I certainly haven't seen any links to a paedophillic website, so he is talking outta of his arse.

I never said a pedophilliac site, i said someone gave a link to a site and i quoted what that site said about pedophilia.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=bigot

In all fairness is it wrong i don't want to see it ? I have a gay friend for years. Since Primary school. I used to go out with his sister. I'm not anti-gay, i go out with him and his "other" all the time. I have the craic with them, drink with them. All i want is NOT to have to see them being intimate. What is wrong with that ???

Talliesin

McClane wrote:

Ban me for what ? For saying i thought the banners should be toned down ?

Now I read this and I thought "there's no way this guy could be so stupid that he thinks that's all his posts said.

But then he's been reading the fecking urbandictionary as if any one post can be considered definitive :rolleyes:

McClane wrote:

All i want is NOT to have to see them being intimate. What is wrong with that ???

The banner adverts show nothing more intimate than two girls kissing. I think that's sweet. Even if you disagree one will see people kissing all the time.

rsynnott

McClane wrote:

I never said a pedophilliac site, i said someone gave a link to a site and i quoted what that site said about pedophilia.

Goodness, one of the many, many definitions covered paedophilia. The word 'bigot' must be stricken from the English language!

McClane wrote:

In all fairness is it wrong i don't want to see it ? I have a gay friend for years. Since Primary school. I used to go out with his sister. I'm not anti-gay, i go out with him and his "other" all the time. I have the craic with them, drink with them. All i want is NOT to have to see them being intimate. What is wrong with that ???

Does he object if he sees you kissing your girlfriend/wife/prostitute? Anyway, there is no male-male intimacy in the banners. Carry on!

Boston

I haven't felt this upset reading a Thread since I last visited stormfront. I just can't put into words how I feel at this moment. All i'm trying to do is organise a night out, maybe help some people who arn't comfortable with the scene meet like minded people. I'm not trying to hurt anyone, and I certainly didn't expect four or five threads across three forums on this.

I'd like to thank everyone that has come out and support us on this, it means allot. I hope to see you all on saturday.

rsynnott

Ah, I wouldn't worry much; if you look at the posting history of most of the culprits.... well, we'll say no more.

Oh, there's a thread in Prison too, btw.

Victor

ecksor wrote:

This is one guy wearing straps. I notice you're specifically not complaining about the one with two girls which is a bit more risque and certainly not natural either by your logic.

Photo shop is unnatural!

MSPaint is even worse, two stickmen holding hands, eeeeewwwwwwwwwww!

Boston

Theres five threads. I've read them all.