Rey, I would argue that, while there's nothing wrong with a little nipple now and then, those kinds of websites are an industry that isn't generally intermingled with everything else. There's a reason such magazines are in a different section of the cigar shop (in the back, under wraps).
I was joking when I suggested a separate section on your site. I think a separate section is not such a good idea because then you're listing a bunch of porn sites on one page and (a) how distracting will that be and (b) is that the kind of message we're trying to send? "Hey, here's a bunch of porn sites, filtered just for your entertainment, that use CF." It's not a service I think you started out to provide. Watch where you tread and where the path leads. So, in the end, it's YOUR site, Rey, and it's up to YOU to decide if those kinds of sites are acceptible. If it were me? Call me a prude[,] butt[,] I wouldn't list them. The adult shop? Sure. The overt meat? Nah. Let someone else do that and post a link to it. Maybe the Dutch guy can do that for you. He'd certainly make some Google bucks on it. Mik At 01:54 PM 3/5/2007, Mark A Kruger wrote: >I would prefer a separate category or page for "adult" or "mature" themed >sites. Here's my reasoning - posted in good humor and with no intent to >flame or be flamed... (I forgot my asbestos underwear today). > >For me this is less a moral issue than a business issue. The owners of the >sites that I've submitted (about 10 or 15 sites) would not appreciate or >consent to being listed intermingled with overtly adult content sites... I >want CF to have a professional and corporate reputation. I don't include >hooter's girls in my family portrait (though there was the year I wore a >duck suit) and I don't wish for my good customers to have a reason to >question my wisdom in posting their links. Plus grouping all the adults >sites together allows us to carefully scrutinize them so we can be properly >outraged. Can't we evangelize without offending? > >-Mark > >-----Original Message----- >From: Mik Muller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] >Sent: Monday, March 05, 2007 12:22 PM >To: CF-Talk >Subject: Re: GotCFM.com - Need Opinion on Whether to Approve a Site > >Define "legal" porn, please. Will you have a separate section for that? :-Q > >Mik > > >At 11:57 AM 3/5/2007, Rey Bango wrote: >>Hi Janet, >> >>It has to be a site that runs CF in some way but I've reserved the >>right to not list, or remove, a site if it has no redeeming value to >>the CF community. I mentioned in a previous post that I'm very lenient >>but some things just won't get posted. This includes: >> >>* Bogus websites >>* Spam >>* Sites that contain any type of inappropriate content such as racism, >>hate-groups, illegal porn and that sort of stuff >>* Link bait >> >>So I'm going to continue to be flexible in what gets submitted but if I >>see a site, for example, that has 50 .Net pages and 1 CF page, that >>site won't get added. >> >>Rey... >> >>Janet MacKay wrote: >>> Rey, >>> >>> I confess I haven't read anything about gotCFM.com (other than this >thread). >>> >>> So my question is what are the requirements for sites listed on >gotCFM.com? Does a site only have to run CF (whether they have _one_ cfm >page or a thousand) or does the site have to contain an _application_ that >is powered (in whole or in part) by CF? Or none of the above ..? >>> >>> Janet >>> >>> >> >> > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| ColdFusion MX7 by Adobe® Dyncamically transform webcontent into Adobe PDF with new ColdFusion MX7. Free Trial. http://www.adobe.com/products/coldfusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/message.cfm/messageid:271583 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Talk/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.4
